 It's wonderful to see the range of people who are interested in space, who are contributing to space, and we shouldn't make light of the fact that we have more and more artists and more and more people coming from outside the industry to give some help to those of us who have been in it for some time. How do I get the, do you get, oh, okay, there you go. So I'm going to do something a little different today. I'm going to start with the future and then go into who we are. They had asked me to come up and talk about plans for our own private space station. And so I begin with that, and then I'll give some background on our company, Nanorex. The way we look at it, you just heard from Virgin Orbit. We heard from, we all know all the launch vehicles. You know there's 70, 80, 90 companies working launch vehicles. And what the last decade has been really the decade of finally having the opportunity to get to space in a variety of different ways. What we see over the next two decades is that it's going to witness a revolution in destinations. And you know right now we have one space station. We call them outposts going forward, but one space station. I'm very lucky. In the 90s I worked on the Russian space station Mir. And I helped commercialize it. And the International Space Station is my second space station. And I guess I'm going for the trifecta. I hope to work on more than two. And I've really spent my career working on space stations. And finally, through advances in technology, we see the opportunity. Not only the advances in technology, but finally the robustness of the transportation. Gives us a chance to talk about having outposts in space. And I'll talk more about what we're thinking. So the way we're looking at it now, we don't want to go from having one space station in the 90s to one space station today to maybe two with, let's say, the Chinese. That's not an ecosystem. That's not a marketplace. We had that already in transportation with the space shuttle. We had one. It doesn't do any good from a market viewpoint. So what we envision, what we want, what we're working at at NANRx, is to have multiple space stations in different orbits. Some accrued. Some are robotic. Some are for industrial manufacture. Some are for tourists. But how do you do that? It's really expensive. And so we brought back an old von Braun idea. And on the left, this is a little bit wrong. Well, I'll explain. In 1960, von Braun won a von Braun. And importantly for me to say, as director of Marshall Space Flight Center, not in his previous occupation, OK? But as director, it's important. I mean, I should just simply say, the director of the Marshall Space Flight Center in the 1960s said, look, if we want to do space stations, let's reuse the second stage of a vehicle once the fuel is spent. Can we reuse it as a facility, a platform? And on the left is von Braun's handwritten design for the Saturn. And he wanted the second stage to be, there's the Saturn V conversion. And so his goal was to make that a space station. And in fact, America's first space station, Skylab, was a second stage of a Saturn. However, the technology at the time did not permit it to be a spent second stage. The technology and all the furnishings was done on the ground. It was just an empty second stage that went up as a space station. On the right, the diagram's a little off. On the right, NASA looked at it again in the 1980s with the shuttle program and said, can we do this now in the 1980s? And this is from NASA in the 80s with the external tank. And still they said, nope, we can't do it. So NASA has a program called Next Steps. And as you'll learn, NANA racks were the largest commercial user of the International Space Station. And we're very concerned about what comes next, what do we do? And I went to NASA in 2016 and said, hey, why don't we look at the old von Braun idea? And they said, no, no, we've looked at it twice. It's impossible. You can't refurbish a fuel tank, a spent fuel tank once it's in space. And here I am. I'm not an engineer. And here I am saying to NASA, I don't know, call me crazy. But there's been advances in technology since 1985. Why don't we look at it again? And for a year, I just hit on him. And finally they said, OK, submit. And we were awarded part of the Next Steps contract. And what we proposed was to look at the second stage of the Atlas V. And could it be repurposed in space once it finishes mission? On the right is what it looks like, give you a sense of the size. And if you ever have a chance to go to Decada, Alabama and see these things coming off the production line, it's pretty awesome because it's real and exists today. And on the left is how we see the second stage. We call it outposts and we call them independent. So independence won. And this is, robotically, how you can bring together, you can use robots. We undertook a five-month study funded by NASA. And to everyone's surprise, not only did we show that using today's robotics, we worked with MDA robotics, now part of Maxar, using robots that are today on the surface of Mars, not only could we repurpose a spent fuel tank in space, but here comes the really cool part, we could do it without people. That changes everything. It changes everything. It gives you scalability. Instead of talking about doing one module for half a billion or a billion dollars, now you can drop these modules off wherever the vehicle is going. And so for us, though, outposts is not simply a program. It's not simply hardware. It's an ecosystem. And what we are hoping, what we are working towards, is where you can have repurposed upper stages. Again, some are industrial factories. Some can be human rated. They can be attached to the International Space Station. Personally, and I know NASA's coming up with a competition soon, so I have to be careful. But we're really looking closely, is it better to be away from the station than to be part of the station? We love the International Space Station, but if the rules are a little more lenient, if there's a little more freedom, there may be reasons to be a little further away. And then as the previous speakers today, if you've been at the other sessions, we're working with partners who would bring reentry vehicles down. You need tugs that are going between the different platforms. So for us, this is the means to have an ecosystem not only in low Earth orbit, because these vehicles do not just go to low Earth orbit. It can be used for deep space. It can be used for geo. So right now, the status for the outpost program at Nantarax is we rewarded the initial NASA study. And then this summer, we got a next step, a next phase of the next step program. And we're doing a ground demo. We're bringing in a Centaur, the second stage of an Atlas V that did not pass production. It got a dent in it. And we're bringing that to Marshall. And we're going to outfit the vehicle, the hardware, and really get to know it. And we're building up our expertise in autonomous software and robotics and all the things that we see necessary to have a commercial platform. And so this is just one of the designs that the guys have come up with. And as it says, they call them wet labs. There's really nothing new in space. It's just the technology and implementation. And so the size of these things is incredible. It's the one of these converted upper stages of an Atlas V, the Centaur, would have a volume bigger than the biggest module on the International Space Station. And I'm not sure. I don't think I go into it in this presentation. But we've been working on designs where you dock them together. You can spin them to get gravity. There's no limitation to what you can do. I mean, the takeaway message is, folks, stop throwing away assets when they're in space. And I don't know how well you know how the International Space Station architecture works. But when I'm trying to explain this industry to people, I tell them that, look, we send cargo ships up to the International Space Station. And the astronauts, they dock to the station or berth. The astronauts take the cargo out. And half of the cargo ships, what do we do? We stuff them full of garbage and we burn them. I mean, what an extraordinary Christmas gift for the aerospace community. I mean, what a waste of precious assets. I mean, here you have, when something is in space, it's priceless. It's there. And yet we burn them up now. And instead, the whole idea that we're pursuing with the Outpost program is, first, you start with the second stages. And just as Elon Musk and Bezos are reusing the first stage, we're trying to figure out how to reuse the second. We're talking to other launch vehicle operators, not just with the Atlas, both domestic and international. And for us, that it's a huge step, but it is only a first step because, you know, why do we abandon big satellites? Why do we abandon things in orbit? So think of this as the greening of the space exploration movement, I suppose, is a way to say it. And this really summarizes the way we're looking at the next generation of space stations is that it cannot be government dominated, cannot be, there will never be another space station in low Earth orbit like the International Space Station. The modular approach, started by the Russians on the mirror, the modular approach may be engineering-wise wonderful, politically wonderful, but it is really bad from a utilization viewpoint. You don't want an astronaut on an exercise bike when you're trying to do fiber optic or Z-blend production in the next module. We've known this for 25 years, but we still do it. And what we see as the future is an ecosystem approach where you don't have one, you have several, you have tugs, you have an entire marketplace that builds on the legacy of the International Space Station, builds on the lessons learned, not just in technology, but also in how we work with space agencies. And so when we look at the commercial potential, realize when we show a chart like this, it's per space station. So again, you wouldn't do this all on one space station. So in other words, on the left would be the robotic. You'd have one or two indifferent orbits that would be for industrial production. And then if you had a space hotel or if you had something for professional astronauts, take a moment, talk about the satellite services. When we look at NANOX, when we look at the future 10 years out, and again, you've been hearing there's 70 launch vehicles, for us the future is let's say you have two, three, four dozen launch vehicles in 10 years. In our mind, my mind, half of what they carry up will be satellites. But the other half will be raw materials. And there will be raw materials that go to industrial platforms to manufacture finished products in space, mostly for the in-space market. So I think the whole idea of what those launch vehicles take up is going to change. At NANOX now, we've deployed over 200 satellites from the International Space Station. And more and more of our customers are asking us to do what we call a store and deploy, where you bring a satellite up, you keep it there until you need it. And it's going to be a long time before we have instantaneous launch. And when you deploy today, maybe you deployed on Thursday because the weather was good. Maybe you deployed on Thursday because the Air Force cleared the range. Maybe you didn't want to deploy on Thursday. And so there's a role for space stations in many different markets in many interesting ways. And once we can get beyond that we have one controlled by a government, then you can really see the market emerge. Talk about NANOX for a moment. We say we're the world's first commercial space station company with customers. And that part is the most important to me. So we're in the customer business. It's not the hardware. It is not the hardware. And this is what our customers have use of today. And we're very proud. We work with Blue Origin, New Shepard, and doing the payload integration. We built some of the racks on Virgin Galactic. We're building the Bishop Airlock. Right now it's in manufacture. We're building an airlock on the space station. It'll be five times larger than the current airlock on the station, the Japanese. Why are we doing that? Because we see markets for satellite deployment and cargo in and out of the International Space Station. And we're foolishly and not privately funding it. And it's now at Thalysilinia going through final manufacture. First was in Alabama with Boeing, both Boeing and Thalysilinia partners with us on the airlock. We've also deployed over 230 or 250 satellites off of the station. We're using other carriers now as well. And we own the largest range of privately owned hardware on the International Space Station. And we have nanolabs, plate readers, all sorts of different things. And it's worth saying that when we started nine years ago, Nanorax was the first company in the world to own and operate its own hardware on the International Space Station. Nobody had done that before. We were the first company to set prices. You'd mention a price nine years ago to NASA. And everybody in the room would go, you don't mention price. Don't do that. It's like beneath them. And I'd walk in and say, look, we want to go to schools for our Mixtix program. We have a subsidiary DreamUp for education. We've sent 160 schools to the International Space Station. I may be off a little bit. And our least expensive price for students is $15,000 US for 30 days on the station and newsflash. We don't make any money on that. But it's kind of the right thing to do. So in the beginning, NASA was like, first off, why should we let Nanorax do this? We do this. I'm like, well, you're NASA. You're the government. You don't do things efficiently. And also, everything was peer-grouped. So if you wanted to fly with NASA 10 years ago, a committee had to decide. And early on, there was a woman at NASA who said to me, I don't understand Nanorax. How do you prioritize your payloads? And I was like, well, when the check clears the bank, you get to go to the space station. And they were appalled. They were horrified. And so we have an agreement with NASA. We don't do souvenirs. We don't do coffee mugs. But we have sent 750 payloads to the station. And nobody is there. I mean, there's nothing close. And we've had multiple pharmaceutical clients. We've had basic materials. We've had research. We recently, two years ago, we were able to work within the WOLF Amendment, but still invited first commercial Chinese customer to the International Space Station, a Beijing Institute of Technology, which did a fascinating study on synthetic DNA. And they've shown, first, by flying on their platform and then a reflight on the ISS that you get damage to DNA when it's been exposed to this space environment. And obviously, this has great ramifications for our desire to travel to Mars and to be a species that goes into planetary. And so what exactly is causing this damage? Is it the radiation? Is it the microgravity? And so it was very difficult for us to get that we got it through first the Obama administration, and then the Republican Congress agreed to this project. And one of the stipulations I promised those in Congress was that the Beijing Institute of Technology would publish their results in English. They did that about six weeks ago, eight weeks ago, in a very rigorous study showing once again they're seeing damage and DNA that's been exposed in the space environment. So I mean, why doesn't, I guess, so some of our customers, this is a little heavy on the Middle East. I'm leaving tomorrow for Abu Dhabi. So we change this around at different times. But one of the issues that's in the rage in Washington today is, Jeff, you say you're commercial, but you have ESA and you have NASA up there as customers. Well, they are for us customers. I mean, it's my hardware on the space station. My investor is paid for this hardware. We own it, and NASA uses it, or ESA uses it. So they're commercial customers. And people say, no, no, it's NASA. No, I mean, when NASA books a flight to come to Boston, on JetBlue, I mean, it's a rough analogy. But when NASA, I mean, they're paying a ticket. They're commercial. So this is the range of the customers. As Robbie mentioned this morning, we're very proud to work with Planet. We've worked with Spire and Made in Space. We work with pharmaceutical companies and a range. I think it's we're up to 32 nations now and growing rapidly. So I think that's it. So at NanoRacks, we're in the space station business. This is something new. This is something that's still a little bit ahead. We see the markets. We know that the marketplace is there on existing markets today, like satellite deployment in space manufacture. For us, for me personally, the space station, the International Space Station, is a proven ground. It's a proven ground for how you work in space, how you work with space agencies. And so it's not easy. It's not easy to work. And we work now with NASA, with the European Space Agency, with DLR, the German Space Agency. We work with the UAE Space Agency. And so with JAXA, we're beginning to work with the Japanese Space Agency. And so it's unlocking what we have today and taking that and going a decade out and envisioning an ecosystem where the government is a customer, where new players have entered. There's robustness. And this space is just another place to do business. So I think any questions with that? I think that's it. Yeah. Hi, Jeff. My name is Jaren. And my question for you is two parts. One is with your existing business model, you presented a very compelling vision for having commercially operated space stations potentially in orbit and other places. I'm curious, number one, if you see a need to shift your business model in order to get closer to having the commercial space station business a reality? And if so, what do you think are the next big steps in order to make that a reality? So I mean, we get some criticism at NANIRAX. People say, oh, you've got all these customers and you're doing all this stuff. But it's a government space station. The taxpayer paid for that space station. Can you really stand on your own commercially? And it's a very nuanced question, because first off, almost no market doesn't, especially in the states, first off, historically, all new markets get government support, just the way whether it was railroads or whether it was aviation. By the way, from the previous talk with Virgin Orbit, it was interesting that Boeing, I forget the gentleman, Mr. Boeing, when he started Boeing, he then 10 years later started an airplane company called United. And it was Congress that forced them to split apart. So I think we are in a period where we look 20 years out and the business model will be different. Yes, we will have to change our business model. Yes, some of our costs will have to go up, though we always think there'll be government support for the foreseeable future. Yes, I won't be able maybe to do educational students at that price or something. We will lose some things in a commercial platform, but we gain a lot. We gain efficiencies. One of the things I didn't mention is that at Nantarax, we average nine months to get a payload. We can sign a contract today, and within nine months I can get you on the space station. We have customers coming in thinking this is Amazon Prime, and they get mad at us when it's more than two weeks. Well, NASA averages three years through their own system, the same safety review, it's their system. And they average three years in Nantarax it's nine months, so we're fast. We gain in what we're able to do. We can't do marketing now. We can't do advertising, although that's changing. The administrator has said he wants to open that up, and indeed, JAXA, the Japanese Space Agency, has now gone fully commercial on the International Space Station. I was over there three weeks ago reaching agreements on things I could bring up, and it's very commercial now. And suddenly NASA in the United States finds itself not the most commercial, but NASA was the pioneer on the International Space Station for allowing companies like mine to work. So yes, we'll have to change the business model, but I'm looking forward to that with great joy. I mean, it would just be more things we're able to do. Even today, some of the folks at NASA say, don't we let you do everything? No, they don't. There's both manufacturing and advertising and branding, and just not having to go through a gatekeeper. I'm always fighting for what has to go up on the station. And I'm lucky they're very kind to Nano-RAX, but in a more efficient environment, a commercially run environment, I think our prices would come down, the costs would come down, prices would come down, and we could do more. It's been hard to do art on the International Space Station. I had a very interesting customer that wanted to do an art project, and NASA, just trying to explain it to the Space Agency, became too much. So I look forward to changing the business model and figuring out what works in a commercial environment. So do you have a sense, if you came up with a credible design for the use of Atlas upper stage, do you have a sense of what they would charge you to have it? I mean, if they're throwing it away anyway. Yes, we have been in discussions for the past year, year and a half with ULA, with the shareholders of ULA on how to structure this. And they are being very kind in that they're allowing me to say, I don't know at this point what the revenue is, but I know I'll share it with you. I mean, and so because for them, this is an asset which right now is being thrown away, is junk, someone's coming in and is willing to make the investment to make it a tangible, some extra valuation. And so we're working that through. We're working through, and we've been signing MOUs and taking it step by step. So you talked a little bit about how Outposts will enable this ecosystem in space that will really like get things moving. And I think a lot of technology is like reusable rockets are all about opening it up and letting people start doing things. But I think that there's been a little bit of disappointment on the demand side, where there's research applications. Maybe it's commercial tourism. That's the application that's going to get everything going. Maybe it's, like you mentioned, it's deployment on demand. But I was wondering what you think the thing is that's going to the thing is. What's the app? Just say it. What's the app? What's the app that's going to let you commercialize this? For me, it's on-orbit manufacture and deployment of satellites. I think in 10, 15 years, 90% of small satellites, up to 150 kilograms, will be manufactured in space except for the sensor. We already have robots on the ISS that they were doing pharmaceutical work for us. And they're moving like this. And the astronaut used to do that. And the idea of building a satellite on the ground, getting it to a launch site, getting it sent up, deploying on the same day as launch, whether you want to or not, why not have an unmanned platform? You press the button. You have 12 sensors, 12 optics stored there. We're already storing stuff on ISS for customers. So now you're storing the sensors. You manufacture the bus. You manufacture the circuit boards. And the robot puts the sensor on, maybe the solar panels, and you deploy it will. And when I look in the unmanned, not the space tourism, we see a market for space tourism, but a sustainable market. But you can't combine the two platforms. In the unmanned, I know there's a proven market. We're in that now. We've deployed over 200 satellites. Both commercial and strategic, the idea of manufacturing in space deploying on demand is the future for platforms. And I think as additive manufacturing comes further of age, the power of these things, I mean, literally, the power. What one is able to provide in terms of power is extraordinary. And so you start to get larger and larger additive manufacturing units. And what we'll be able to do, I think it will just change a lot. So I'm very interested in rocketry. And so I was wondering, as you're talking about like. Then we're a perfect team. As you're talking about, as the payloads change and it becomes more raw materials over satellites, do you think that the current rush for small satellite launchers is going to die down when we're going to be back to bigger vehicles that are just putting raw material up? I'm just wondering what you think with the satellite background. When we have meetings with new launch vehicle folks, we tell them that you're in the same day deployment business. And every time it's like a routine. And they go, what? And then we explain that everybody's in the same day deployment. But we think part of the future is to control it. And you'll also be in the raw materials business. And there's always this look of, oh, wow. I hadn't thought of it that way before. So first off, the cool thing about engineers is you present something and they go, oh, that's cool. Yeah, I can see that. I don't know. I understand what you're saying. I mean, I wouldn't be happy if the future is Blue Origin and SpaceX alone. I just wouldn't. It's the way I am. I hope that there's dedicated launch vehicles that can meet the demands and that there's small companies. I happen to believe in small companies and like that. And so I don't know what the answer is. But I'm hoping that space does not become. I mean, one of the reasons we're working internationally is overseas they appreciate the approach we have in the states, the cost efficiencies, the open mind, the way we work with the governments. I'm hopeful there's a role in the future for these smaller companies. And we don't just go into an era of domination by a few companies. But maybe I'm a romantic. Yes? I have the microphone. Oh, sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Hi, I'm Lydia from Technology Policy Program here at MIT. So I'm just wondering, is there any regulatory constraints that you have to overcome in order to launch this business idea? This is really cool idea. Well, every Wednesday we have to overcome a regulatory. It's just a huge battle. First, let me say a general question. The federal agencies and the states have been really, really good at changing as we come in with space stations. Quick example, early on when we began deploying from the space station, we had a situation where somebody was supposed to, we had customers going to be deployed. They couldn't make the mission. I forget exactly. And we moved it to another mission. And I was so proud that with the cadence you have to the International Space Station, that it goes up six, eight, 10 times a year. It was like, to me, this is business. You're on this one. I'll move you this one. The customer went berserk. They said, we have a license from the FAA for this launch. And I said, but you're not being deployed from this one. And it's silence. They hadn't thought of it. The FAA was issuing the license still for, let's say, SpaceX 9, okay? But they're not deploying from SpaceX 9. It's a bus. It's a 747. They're being carried up to the space station. And it's the space station that's deploying them. So we had to work. And we've been working with the FAA, for example, it's not really a question, but working with the FAA and now they accept that the space station is the deployment platform, not the vehicle taking you up. So when they're working with Rocket Lab, you may get a license for a deploy on the Rocket Lab. When you're working with Nanorax, better get one for a more general than the specific launch you may be booked on. One of the biggest hurdles in terms of regulation may be under the Outer Space Affairs, it was in 1969 or something. And later amendment by the U.S., who owns that vehicle, that platform? Right now, ULA owns it. And if, how do we take control of it? In an earlier lifetime, I had a company in 2000 called Meerkorp and we leased the Russian space station for two years and created a lot of trouble. NASA was very upset. And, but we kept the mirror up for two, two and a half years longer. And in that example, we leased the station from the Russian owner of the space station. But one day there was a knock on, and it was a Dutch company. And one day there was a knock on the door in my office in Holland, and it was a government official from Holland saying under the Outer Space Affairs Treaty, as we read it, Meerkorp is a Dutch company. Therefore, Holland is now responsible for this part of the Meers space station. I'm like, oh my God, I didn't think this through. And he said, we just want you to know, we passed legislation yesterday, we take a responsibility under the United Nations provision. I was like, wow, I've loved Holland ever since. And I don't know what that would have cost me in lobbyists here, but. So there are certain things on who owns the platform, how do we make sure the platform is brought back to a safe, where it gets destroyed, or parked in a graveyard orbit. So that's probably one of the biggest hurdles that we would face. Any other questions? Yeah, yeah. You've coined the term greening the space exploration movement, and you make a very compelling case with recycling the second stage of rockets. Just to focus on LEO, I'd like to have your vision in, let's say, 10 years about the key elements of this market. I see one infrastructure, which is constellations, another infrastructures, which is actually your platforms. So how many assets do you see? And could you comment on that? Sure, first you said Leo. But Leo is still a big place. And so a lot of these constellations are going to be a thousand miles up. So I just wanna first say that we're not predicting that we're gonna have three or four or five platforms and one web's gonna be crashing into them. But what I would envision in the decade is there'll be six or eight to 10 space stations. Some will be owned by government, some will be owned by the private sector, but all will be commercially operated. Yes, okay, all will be commercial. So even China today is in discussions on commercial utilization of this station. So we may see, maybe Russia will have its own station, but there will be commercial opportunities. And then there will be the constellations. And some of the constellations will be looking down, some will be looking up, some will be talking to each other. And you'll have a complete architecture. You'll have waystations to take us into CIS Lunar. You'll have warehouses, fuel depots. This can easily be fuel depots. We, at Nantarax, we always go with the non-sexy things. It's just the way we are. So you have too many big boys in this industry. So someone else may do a hotel, but we'll be given the platform. Someone else may wanna go to Mars when we can be a fuel station for them. So I see the infrastructure. One of the ironies is we're having trouble here in the States and funding for infrastructure, but I think we're gonna do quite well in space on infrastructure development. So I think it'll be a range of vehicles up, down, a range of platforms. We call outposts. And they'll also be the first outposts in deep space owned by governments, owned by, like if the Deep Space Gateway, NASA's Deep Space Gateway, that's supposed to announce in June, the PPE, I think it's called to, and so you'll begin to see the infrastructure development. Yes. Well, my answer is always the same. It depends on my customers. I go with the customer. So I would envision that for fuel depots, and as long as you're in Leo, you're fine, but I don't know what the future will be. Okay. Hi, I wanted to ask a question about spent satellites. So I know there are a few different... Spent satellites? Yeah, exactly. I know there are a few different groups that are working on refurbishing satellites, essentially. What opportunities do you see for reusing satellites that have just run out of fuel? Well, it's not really my area. The way I can answer it is, and I don't think Maxar would mind my pitching them. They've done this publicly. Maxar, you know, there used to be LaRau and MDA Robotics and a few others that come together with new name Maxar. And they have a presentation where they say, if our future is simply to put up a satellite, have it last 15 years if it's a big bird or two years if it's a CubeSat, and then throw it away and start with new ones, we're dead. To be competitive, we have to also reuse that in-space hardware. And so that's one of the reasons why Maxar has partnered with us on this, is they're trying to also figure out, what can we do with in-space assets? How do we repurpose them? Probably the most simplistic, maybe the wrong way to say it, the most logical application for a spent satellite is this raw material for additive manufacturing into outposts, that's to be my guess. It's gonna say, nobody mentioned the elephant in the room, they almost did. Debris, nobody's mentioned that at all today, not really, not really tackled it. Yeah, one of the reasons is that at NanoRacks, we're in a good spot. The satellites we deploy from the space station naturally de-orbit within a year. I think there's a UN provision now that overset time, I think it's like 25, I don't, how much is it? It is 25, so the satellites from the space station come down naturally, and we don't violate that. When I'm talking about repurposing these second stages, right now, they're junk. So we're at least making, when you make use of something, it's no longer junk. And so you paint it, it looks nice. Okay, and so, yes, it is an issue, but I'm hopeful we're taking the first steps, and there were some foundations, nonprofits looking at this, Max Ozling this, we're looking at it, lots of folks are looking at this. As space is becoming more commercial, let's not stuff trash into these cargo vehicles and throw them away. How do you reuse this stuff? And so I think we're entering a period where we're concerned, and that's a good beginning, because the end result's gonna be more, not only less pollution, but more efficient use of the assets, so, is that it? Great, thank you very much.