I believe we're going to get you to space as soon as we figure out where we're supposed to sit. But it's very nice to see you all and thanks to USA House for hosting us. We were just talking backstage that space people are like incredibly optimistic. Obviously, you would obviously not be in this business if you were not total optimists. And it's a nice break in some ways from some of the conversation this week. And but one of the things right now that people are so optimistic about is investment. And we have here two of really the leading operators who are building the space station that we're all going to wind up hanging out in in a couple of years. But and we have one investor Mike and I guess I thought just before we dive in a bit on the details, some of the concrete details and some of the details particularly about the space station business. I wonder if you could give us just a brief kind of tour of the, you just raised a big fund to invest in space. Here's a bit quick tour of the kind of investable space landscape and what people are excited about in you know 90 seconds, two minutes.
Yeah, happy to do so and thank you to USA House for hosting us here today. So I guess historically 70% of the commerce in orbit is satellite communications and something rather miraculous has been happening over the last few years. I tend to think of it like the railroad moment in the mid-1800s and that is that the cost of launch is dropping rather dramatically and the cost of putting things into orbit of course creates new opportunities for new markets. So, at least for those of you who are angel investors, my usual advice is put together a portfolio of at least 20, 30 plus companies, you know, because statistically you're going to lose your money if you put all of it into one. Or wait till the public markets are accessible, these companies have gone public. The risk presumably will be much much less. So, I think this year with the talk of a SpaceX IPO will be a seminal moment for the space industry. A lot of the companies that we've invested in are modifying plans just given that, you know, it's going to be a watershed moment. And we hope the beginning of a vast wave of new public offerings. So, no pun intended.
That's right. It's hard to talk about space and not use puns. But having said that, I think actually our colleagues are also prolific angel investors. So maybe helpful to ask them the same. Bill, you're an investor as well as an operator. Can you react to that a little?
Yeah. Well, I started investing in space in about 2008. And in those days, if you were investing in space, people thought you were investing maybe in asteroid mining or something far-fetched, and people would kind of snicker a bit when you talked about space investment. And of course, those people now ask for investment advice as they look at the market. So, quite a bit has changed. I think companies are more sophisticated and certainly the SpaceX IPO has generated a lot of interest.
Do you think it'll happen? The SpaceX IPO this year?
What odds would you give it?
High odds because I think Elon's on record saying he wants to do it and Elon typically delivers on his commitments. But speaking of Elon, really to give SpaceX credit, what has changed fundamentally about the industries? We now have reliable, inexpensive, but most importantly, high cadence launch. Humanity is launching to orbit about every 48 hours on average right now. That's extraordinary. We sent more satellites to orbit in 2025 than the entire history of the space program to that date previously. So things are really accelerating. Interest is very high and it's very exciting because it opens up a lot of business plan opportunities in the industry.
And Dylan, before I go to Max, can you just talk a, there's possibly some people here are not familiar with the ins and outs. Can you just tell me what Voyager is?
Sure. So Voyager is a public as physical concrete terms as possible. Sure. So think of Voyager as an aerospace prime similar to Lockheed, Airbus, Northrop, but really denominated on innovation, entrepreneurial spirit. We were founded six and a half years ago. We're publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. We went public in June. We have a couple of very large high-profile projects. We're at the center of Golden Dome, which many of you know is the missile defense shield for the US. And then we're also part of the space station program, so-called CLD phase one with NASA. Our project is called Star Lab. That's a joint venture with Airbus, Mitsubishi, Palantir and a few others.
Can you just describe it like what does Star Lab look like? Size of this church, bigger, smaller.
So it's roughly 8 meters in diameter. So it would be roughly, in fact we have a full-scale mockup at NASA building 9 in Houston. But yeah, it would be roughly as tall as the roof of this church and it would be about 7.4 meters in diameter. So it's actually quite large. It has 100% of the research capacity of the International Space Station today. But notably, it's a single launch to orbit. So unlike the ISS which had modules that were assembled over time, think of this as being built, tested on the ground and launched in a single launch on SpaceX Starship taking advantage of that new heavy lift capacity. So it'll be one of the commercial successors to the ISS. There'll be others as well, but this is really focused on research. Thus the name Star Lab, focusing on laboratory space.
If I could quickly add, I guess I was with you in the Congress Center here a year ago, the day that you filed your S-1. And for the longest time when we were contemplating this fund, we were always getting feedback, well there haven't been any major exits in space, right? And you know, SpaceX obviously does two tenders per year that fill up, but Voyager was kind of the start of the wave. And to your credit, you know, that's a very bold thing to do to be the first out the window when the window opens up. So congrats.
And Max. Tell us about Vast.
Yes. So we are a space station company based in Long Beach, California. And one of our key objectives in the next few years is to have the privilege to win the NASA contract. The next phase of this contract, and this is a huge, what scale is that contract? Right now NASA is making some final decision as to what the next phase will be but the last incarnation was about $1.5 billion for the development contract for two winners or so but more importantly the key is the services NASA want to send a crew permanently to low-Earth orbit because we will lose that capability once the ISS is retired and it's geopolitically strategically really important that we do not see low-Earth orbit go to China which right now has a permanent space station.
And you were two, just to for context, you're two of the four serious bidders for this giant space station project of which a number will be selected.
It's an open competition, but I think we consider about four likely serious bidders.
So just again tell me about this thing you're building.
Yeah. So our approach, we joined the competition in '23. So later than all of our competitors here. And the approach we took is to leverage the funding and investment from our founder which has been close to a billion dollars to basically lead with hardware and be hardware-rich. So we decided not to wait to win the contract and we first launched a satellite to prove all of our space station technology including the human element last November. It's right there orbiting and successful. And then in Q1 next year, we'll be launching our first crewed space station called Haven 1, which is a single module space station. So it's similar to some of the early days of the space program of Russia and even the beginning of the ISS. And this will have a crew of four visited for two weeks or more. And then our plan in terms of comparing to Star Lab's plan is different in a way that we are mass-producing modules and are planning to launch multiple modules a year to reach similar specifications or larger we'll see, with a very different approach. So our colleagues at Star Lab are more one and done and we are more on iteration moving fast and getting there on time before the ISS is retired.
And the space industry is sort of, I mean as you suggested, kind of a cousin of the American military-industrial complex which has these huge problems and these companies Lockheed, Boeing are under constant criticism from Washington but it can't seem to quit them. And there are these new primes trying to move in that are having their own struggles and space has been the place where particularly with SpaceX kind of seems like it's working. People are very optimistic but the big trend in the defense sector is getting rid of the people. It's unmanned ships, unmanned planes for very obvious reasons. You can just turn a fighter jet faster if there isn't a person in it. Limiting factor on much of what these weapons systems do is that you're trying to take care of a person sitting in the middle of your weapon system. And you're both, and this will be a question for all three of you, but you're both kind of betting on manned space travel. When I think of like if you want to build data centers in space, if you want to build weapons in space, if you want to build all the stuff that people talk about building, why would you do all this work to put people in the middle of it? It just seems unbelievably dangerous and expensive.
I mean, it's grounded if you look at the strategy to be the first nation to go to Mars and to go to the moon and stay there. Clearly, if our country's ambition was to just send robots and China would actually send people, there's a lot of vantage point. I mean, wouldn't the robots win?
Well, like if I was on Mars fighting robots, like that doesn't sound fun.
As the human race, we have to explore and we have to be there. But I'm pretty sure as an American citizen, if you saw a Chinese crew on Mars while we had robots, and we shouldn't be aggressing people with robots. So, let's remove that from the equation. I'm not sure you'd be that proud to be American. That would be...
That sounds like sort of an emotional argument, not a commercial one.
I agree with Max. I mean, I think fundamentally space is a human endeavor. I mean, if I look at the International Space Station, I think it's one of the best things humans have ever done. I think it shows international collaboration. I think it's worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. And I think the best of humanity is projected into space, whether it's our astronaut corps or whether it's our technology or whether it's our values. And I think it's really important fundamentally whether it's sovereign astronauts inspiring the next generation with STEM education and things like that. I think fundamentally humanity, you know, I had the privilege of going, Ben we talked about this in the green room, on a brief suborbital flight seeing the earth from space and I can tell you it's a tool for transformation. Right, Apollo 8, we're about ready to recreate that mission with the Artemis 2 mission which is an out and back to the moon. Well, a lot of people don't realize on Apollo 8 that the Earthrise photo was taken on that mission. That's the first time we saw the blue marble floating in this dark black hostility of space. And I think that fundamentally changed who we are. The first Earth Day was about six months after that photo was taken. So I think it is fundamentally a human endeavor. And I think we have the ability to reimagine what humanity can be. I think it's the best of us. I really believe that.
Well, when you win the Nobel Prize, you know, our president will be happy to take it off your hands.
I wasn't going to go there, but yeah.
Yeah. So, what do you, from what share of the kind of investment prospects here are manned versus unmanned? I mean, how do you think about that? Is that, how do you think about that in sort of the broader landscape?
Yeah. And I don't know that it has to be either or. In fact, I think the best iterations of at least commercial space will probably involve both. Finding ways to use automation, robotics, you know, smart ones and zeros, to augment human capabilities. And we're planning to invest heavily in helping create those capabilities. So, I'm particularly excited about that as an investor. And you know today's space stations are there as I mentioned for exploration but also we're doing important science and research to hopefully for example being able to manufacture pharmaceuticals in space that are fixing diseases and we cannot do on earth thanks to the microgravity. And having those consensus from the work that goes on in the ISS that in the early stage of development of this type of research you need humans in the loop, eventually we will automate it and once you have figured out all the research, automation will be part of it. But the early phase, you know, we'll need humans in the loop and that's why the ISS is there, that's a big big big rationale for it. And that's why both of our businesses are hoping to unlock the orbital economy with these new applications leveraging humans instead of just sending experiments which are sort of more fixed from the ground up.
In terms of the, I mean if you're sort of essentially pitching a space lab, what is, what do you see as the most promising line of research?
There's several. I mean for example we announced a patent last week on crystal growth. One of the things that people don't fully appreciate about microgravity is you can actually grow perfect crystals in space. You can return those seeds if you will.
Sorry, what does microgravity mean?
So microgravity, when you're in perpetual freefall, so you're in orbit. A lot of people think, well, in space there's no gravity.
There's no gravity, but that's not the case. The microgravity stems from the fact that you're in perpetual freefall because you're in orbit. So when you turn gravity off, think of chemistry as a convective force, right? Molecules getting knocked together. When you reduce gravity, you essentially put everything in a slow motion machine. So you can grow perfect crystals, you can extrude perfect optical fiber, you can make perfect semiconductor wafers. But what's really interesting is you can take those, you can print organs, by the way, Ben, true story.
So if you need a new kidney, a new meniscus, you could do that. Because things aren't collapsing under the weight of gravity. So the reason more research isn't done on the ISS is it's supply constrained, right? Astronaut time, lab space, launch cadence, things like that. So in these commercial space stations, as Max is alluding to, there's a lot of commercial activity. This is a situation where supply is not addressing demand, it's actually creating demand. So we go to space to benefit life here on Earth, and there's a lot of research areas that are pretty exciting with microgravity.
So here in USA House we're going to have a big share of the US government through here this week. I think they mentioned that Bessent will be here. Lutnick will be here. Michael Kratsios the science adviser is going to be here. How do you think, I mean I think there's been a lot of, I mean I don't know if you'd say the Trump administration has done a reset on space policy but I guess I'm curious how you would, and if you want to start, how you would assess this administration's approach to space so far.
It's a good question. Very good question. I don't want to put words in my partner's mouth. So Jim Bridenstine is a partner of ours in the fund. He was the administrator from 2018 through 2021. And his signature accomplishment was the creation of the Artemis Accords, which is sort of a, I think the initial eight countries essentially was a roadmap for collaboration in space. And at least the new administration is actually leaning very heavily on the private sector and creating incentives which I kind of think of this like the old DARPA grand challenges around driving through the desert autonomously without any human intervention and it's just a fundamentally different model. Some of the basic science I think will be missed in all fairness but at the same time we adapt to this new reality as investors and run with it.
Yeah, I think the policy probably rewards more commercial-minded companies. I think there's a push at NASA to rethink the way things have been done to try to do more with less. So I think that rewards companies that have this entrepreneurial push to it. I'm very optimistic about the new NASA administrator Jared Isaacman. Jared's not only been to space, but he's fundamentally a very smart business person. I think he's a great leader. I think morale at NASA was quite low. I think it's increased dramatically just in the short time he's been there. So, I'm very very optimistic that he's going to be able to do great things for the administration. And the key focus right now appears to be return to the moon. And I think it's really important to the administration to not only go back to the moon with humans, but go back to stay. So, think of a habitat or a moon base being built. And you know, imagine a future in the early 2030s where you're on the porch in upstate New York at your weekend place and you look at the moon and there are lights on the moon and there's lights on the moon because there are humans living and working on the moon.
Not sure how I feel about that. How do you feel about that?
There's like light pollution. I don't know.
Well, there's already a little bit of latent light with a full moon. I think it'd be inspiring. I think it'd be inspiring to know that humans are living and working in space.
Yeah, it's going to happen whether we like it or not.
Yeah, lights on the moon. It's coming.
The other piece, you know, the Trump administration on the first day of Jared Isaacman, which is an excellent choice, becoming NASA administrator also issued an executive order for space supremacy for the United States. And so this really shows you how serious they are. We're really optimistic not only the focus on NASA but integrating DoD in making sure that we execute at speed.
It's definitely a concern. The US now has a space force, right? The space force is a bit of a militarization of space but that was not done in a vacuum. It was done in response to...
And the Chinese are also very focused.
Yeah. And if you look at the Chinese space station, which is a new space station, it's been in orbit a couple of years. All the astronauts who have been on station there are active duty military within the Chinese military. So that's the posture that they have taken. So I am worried about it. You know, I have said this a couple times previously, Ben, but I'll share it with the audience here today is I like this thought experiment because I do think space is this tool for transformation and a way for us to reimagine what humanity can be. And the thought experiment I like to use is what the future of humanity in space will be determined by the answer to a question. That question is what will happen first? The first human born in space or the first combat fatality in space? And I think the answer to that question very much will shape what our future in space looks like as a species. And so part of my life's mission and part of what we're trying to do with Voyager and Star Lab and everything else I'm involved in, including a nonprofit I founded, Space for Humanity, is to try to help shape that because I think it's really fundamentally important that we work hard to make sure that it's the former, not the latter.
And that is fundamentally a treaty that Trump and Xi and others have to sign, right? I, there's some...
Or do you think these things can be made defensible, you know?
So, I was in Antarctica last week on a family vacation. Highly recommend it. Deep in the interior and we, in character, of course, we did make it to the South Pole. Time zones are arbitrary, by the way. But one of the things that you're struck by there is the Antarctic Treaty, which has survived for, you know, several decades now, is really a joint collaboration for research and presumably in the benefit of all of humanity. I think that's a good model as we think about space, as we think about the moon. It's a bit Pollyannaish. I get it, Ben. I mean, there's risks for sure. But again, I think if we don't help shape it and try to make that future and to say, well, it's going to happen to us, I just reject that. I think we can influence the future and I think it's important to do that.
Well, I think the competition aspect of that is probably a good thing. I know both of your companies have made phenomenal advances in improving astronaut life and conditions in space. You might have seen last week that the Chinese space station has a convection oven. They had a barbecue in space for the first time and people see that here in Europe. And I think that healthy competition can be a good thing provided that it doesn't become...
Is there a private, is there a Chinese, is there a comparable Chinese private sector? Are you looking at investments in Chinese companies?
Well, we're not able to invest in China just because of our structure. But there's a very advanced dual-use set of capabilities in China.
I mean, are they, when you look at for instance the US auto industry, we're now in a situation where our response to the Chinese auto industry is to not allow them in our country because they have better cheaper products. Is that, I mean, do you find, is the Chinese space industry in a similar place?
I think from our perspective, provided that we're able to set a game plan and think very long term, as the Chinese do very very well. They're very good at building infrastructure to their credit. So my hope is that Western nations will also collaborate similarly. And I mean last night I was at the Cambridge University, Oxbridge or Oxford University joint reception. And if Oxford and Cambridge can have the same party, then surely we can cooperate.
Davos really bringing people together.
Do you have a view I guess on either of those questions? The sort of defensibility of these projects that you're investing in and, relatedly obviously, the competition from China.
I mean space has been assumed for many decades that, you know, you could leave your asset there, military asset, GPS asset, and you were just hoping that they would be fine. And so I think the big change now obviously is that it's a contested domain and all sides are investing and making sure it's defensible. To answer your question, if you look at the Starlink constellation where we now have more than 9,000 satellites, it is defensible. You know, if you can take any satellite out and you're not affecting the service. You could do the nuclear option which is literally to detonate a nuke in space and destroy it for everyone, but I don't think anyone is going to do that. So, it is defensible.
Is there a risk that it's just so much cheaper to destroy things than build them in that environment?
Oh, it's much more expensive to destroy them than to build them at this point for Starlink. You know, I don't have the exact number of the cost of manufacturing and launching a Starlink satellite. But the capability to destroy it from the ground or from space, one has to assume that it's much more expensive for sure per satellite. So, it is defensible. We just have to invest in...
Do you think the US government is investing enough? Because there is obviously this push toward companies that have commercial revenue streams. I mean, isn't this when you know when big past technological pushes like the Manhattan...
Project represented really like a non-trivial share of GDP in those years and of government spending.
Do you think we're investing enough?
I mean, the big shift is not prime versus commercial, it's cost plus contract versus fixed firm price commercial space.
Very boring, very important.
And if you look at space, the best example is SpaceX. If you look at human space flight, they single-handedly brought back the ability for America to send humans to space.
