Hello, welcome to The Space Policy Show. I'm Colleen Stover with the Center for Space Policy and Strategy, part of The Aerospace Corporation. I'm excited to introduce this next episode to you. I've dubbed it The Leadership Show, and we're talking about enabling the in-space economy of the future. It's a three-parter covering cislunar, including the Moon, and activities in low Earth orbit, or LEO. The guests include CEOs from Voyager Technologies and Varda Space Industries. Both companies are doing real things in space today, and they're looking to advance for tomorrow. We also have the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, dual-hatted as Director of the Office of Space Commerce. So, how do these leaders envision the in-space economy unfolding? What feels different now than any other time in the history of commercial space activities? What is industry looking for from government to unleash the business of in-space activities while maintaining both coordination and competition? And finally, what is government doing to enable that and continue building on the mass capitalization that we see today? We hear directly from Department of Commerce on that. So, don't forget, all of our shows are on YouTube and available by podcast. The center's deep research papers on topics from across the space sector are all at csps.aerospace.org. So, let's go over to the Chairman and CEO of Voyager Technologies, Dylan Taylor. He's talking to the Director of Civil and Commercial Policy here at CSPS, Dr. Brian Weeden, about the lunar and cislunar economy from his perspective. Brian.
Thank you, Colleen. Dylan, it's great to see you today. Thank you for joining us.
Thank you, Brian. Great to be with you.
Well, I know you're well-known in certain parts of the space industry, but if you could just briefly start by introducing yourself and your company and what your role is in our ecosystem.
Yeah, sure. So, Voyager, publicly traded space and technology company on the New York Stock Exchange. We went public in June of 2025. We were founded roughly seven years ago. We're notable for a couple of reasons. We're working on a commercial space station project called Starlab. We're also the largest commercial user of the International Space Station today—that's the legacy NanoRacks business. We also do a lot as it pertains to picks and shovels: laser comm terminals, star trackers, power and propulsion systems for satellites, and the like. And then we also have a large national security and defense business as well. So, my background is in running public companies. I've done that most of my career, but always lifelong passionate space advocate, got involved in the industry probably about 15 years ago as an early-stage investor, done a couple other things. I founded Space for Humanity that you might know. And Brian, I think you and I had some interaction on that. And that's a nonprofit that's dedicated to democratizing access to space and sending people to space. And at Voyager, I serve as Chairman and CEO of the company. We're based in Denver. And yeah, so that's a little bit about what we're up to. And of course, it's all about infrastructure, which I know we'll get to, but that's really what Voyager is focused on.
Well, and that's fascinating. You get, you know, view, and Voyager has such a broad interaction with different parts of the space economy, from suppliers to doing your own things and activities. That's kind of what we want to talk about today, right? And I'll start by saying: where do you see the in-space economy going in 20 years from now, particularly as we start thinking about extending from what we're doing in Earth orbit out toward cislunar and lunar space?
Right. Well, we think of it in terms of what we call the "three L's," Brian, which I think you'll appreciate. First L being LEO, low Earth orbit, of course, and I think that'll be more about commercialization of LEO via commercial space stations, satellite constellations, and the like. And then, of course, the second L being lunar, right? There's a big push into lunar; we have our key initiative on that as well, which we can talk more about. But I think that's going to be a big policy focus for certainly the Trump administration and presumably beyond that as well. And then the third L, many people don't necessarily associate this with the next step, but we call it Lagrangian, which, for those of you who are not space buffs or experts necessarily, Lagrange points are these stable orbits. There's five of them. Think of it as kind of a permanent orbit that won't degrade over time. L2, for example, has the James Webb Telescope in it, about a million miles from Earth roughly. So, we see Lagrangian as the next step past lunar that's really a proving ground for deep space, and that's ultimately what's going to open the gates for destinations like Mars, the asteroid belt, and things like that. So, the three L's: Lagrangian, Lunar, and LEO.
That's a pretty expansive vision. As you and the company think about that, do you primarily think about it in terms of technology, or economics, or governance, or culture, or all of those? Is there a particular focus that you think kind of draws all that together?
Yeah, it's a brilliant question, Brian, because that I think that is actually what we need to be more thoughtful of. When I say we, I mean the industry. So I think one approach that's been super successful recently is vertical integration, right? SpaceX has just completely crushed vertical integration. I'm not against vertical integration, but I don't think you can commercialize LEO, I don't think you can commercialize lunar, I don't think you can make it to Mars without broad partnerships—not only coalitions internationally, but broad partnerships between different types of companies from different industries. So I see a massive opportunity for what I call convergence, which are really different technologies, different industries flying in formation around policy, around standards, around vision, but really working together for these greater aims. I don't think it's realistic to say we can vertically integrate the equivalent of Asimov's Foundation corporation, if you will, and pull off these civilization-level changes under a single company. I just don't think that's practical, not only for regulatory and other reasons, but even capitalization. Like, even SpaceX at presumably $1.75 trillion won't have all the capital they need to do all the things that we're talking about long term, right? So I think it's really important that you partner. It's really important that there are policy frameworks that we can all, as I said, fly in formation around. I believe in international collaboration. I know that's a little bit out of vogue right now for whatever reason, but I actually think that this is a human endeavor, and ultimately we've got to make sure that international cooperation is at a maximum. And you know, I've talked about this before, but I think we are developing two different distinct ecosystems: the Chinese-led ecosystem and the Western-led ecosystem. But there's a big, broad middle ground there that haven't picked their lane yet. And I think it's really important that we have a compelling ecosystem that the people, whether it's the Gulf States, or South America, or Turkey, or India, that they're gravitating—no pun intended—towards our ecosystem.
Yeah. I want to pick up on that international point a little bit here, but I want to return to kind of I think what you said was when we talk about a space economy or space market, a market is not just one or two companies or even one or two customers. It is, I think ideally, a diverse range of many companies, many buyers, many sellers, right? That's what I learned in my basic economics class. That's what makes a real market and kind of bring those market forces about. And I think that that's what you're getting at, right? If we're trying to build an economy, that's where you think we really need to be aiming for, right?
Yeah. Yeah, I think that's well said, Brian. I think it's a marketplace, but then also I want to make sure I emphasize this point: it's not just space companies, right? It's technology companies, earthbound companies in general, resource companies that are all converging for these large—take data centers in space, right? That's a hot topic right now. That is definitely going to be a convergence of a lot of different industries to ultimately enable that. Same thing with lunar commercial development, right? But yes, it's a marketplace, but it's also a convergence of different industries, is the way I see it being successful.
Yeah, and I think that gets to this question of, you know, sometimes we think of the space economy as something separate and distinct from the Earth economy, where I think the point you just made about orbital data centers, for example, they're going to be using terrestrially made components and chips and all sorts of things and hopefully connecting back down to terrestrial systems. So I think you're also sort of hinting at that point: yes, space is important, but it's not an independent thing necessarily, right? It's about being the broader part of the Earth economy.
Totally, totally. And I think of it as a domain, right? I've talked to a group of global CEOs at the World Economic Forum and other venues, and I've told them, I said, "You're all in the space industry. You just don't know it yet." Because think of the space domain as a domain, right? We don't talk about the China industry, right? China is a domain; it's a sphere of commerce. It's the same thing with space. And so all these industries are going to have a space strategy or be impacted by space-based assets, right? So I think of it that way. And then I've said this before, but I like the way it lands, which is: think of the Moon as the eighth continent. And think of it as an opportunity for commerce, but think of it as a frontier. Think of it as an Antarctica, if you will. By the way, that brings up a whole issue around policy, right? Do we have the Antarctica Treaty model or do we have the free-for-all Wild West model for governance, right, which I think is a really important question to be asked. But yeah, I think of space as a domain. I think of all industries being impacted by it. And I think of the Moon as the eighth continent, I really do.
People in the space community have been talking about the space economy for decades, and you and I, we've been around long enough, we've seen some of those things come and go. What is different about now that you think makes it more realistic that we might actually be able to make some of these visions come true? First of all, is it different now? And is it the technology? Is it the economics? Is it the policy? Is there something there that makes now different?
Yes, it is different. I think that the number one enabler is heavy-lift rocket capability, Brian. Now that we have not only reusable, reliable, inexpensive launch, it's also high cadence, right? I mean, humanity is launching every 36 hours or so. That was unheard of even five years ago. Even for the most bull case, we weren't envisioning launching every 36 hours. And this is pre-Starship. So once Starship's online, New Glenn's online, it's only going to get more dramatic. So I think heavy-lift rocket for sure. I think capitalization: we're going to have the largest IPO in the history of the world, presumably SpaceX here in the next couple months. I don't think we could have obviously had something that meaningful 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 7 years ago. So the fact that we're going to have this gigantic capital event that's really centered around the space industry—I get that there's AI involved and there's other parts of the story that are attracting capital to that offering, but fundamentally it's a space company, right? SpaceX is fundamentally a space company. So I think between heavy-lift rocket capability and capital, those two things have never been more dramatic in terms of its impact on the industry. And then there are other things. I think technology maturing: materials science—that was my undergraduate degree, materials engineering, so I know a little bit about this—and just the advances in materials science in the last 36 months are just extraordinary. So I think a lot of these technologies are starting to mature, and that's further enabling these science-fictiony ideas to be more practical.
Looking at this vision for where you think the space economy is going to be in the next 10 years, going out from low Earth orbit to lunar and out to Lagrangian, let's talk a little bit about what it's going to take to get there. And I want to start by talking about—you mentioned policy several times. The governments under the current legal framework are responsible for enabling, authorizing, and supervising space activities, but also play a strong role in providing the frameworks within which all this activity takes place and creating economic systems. Are there any current sticking points you see in the existing framework for space activities oversight and governance that you think we need to get past in order to really see these goals and this vision come to fruition?
It's a very thoughtful question, Brian. I think certainly space traffic management, I think, is a key thing, right, because we're going to have more activity. This also brings up things like debris and our ability to do conjunction analysis, making sure that we have clean orbits and things like that. So I think all that is being looked at, but I think there's still some work to do. I think lunar is still a very open question right now in terms of, you know, if you were to have a Helium-3 mining company and land on the Moon, are you entitled to those resources, right? What's the framework if there's a dispute, a contract dispute? What policy prevails? What convening jurisdiction has jurisdiction over the issue? So I think a lot of these issues need to be worked out. I know there are a lot of thought leaders putting a lot of thought into this, and there are a lot of working groups talking about it, but I do think this is an area where US policy could provide some leadership here. But the good news is I think people are recognizing that. I think the conversations are happening, and we have a Space Caucus now. As you probably know, we actually I think now have a Human Spaceflight Caucus. I think Space for Humanity had something to do with that. George Whitesides, who I know you know, former Chief of Staff at NASA, is very much involved in these issues, and there are other people in Congress who are involved in these issues. So I think we're getting smarter—we meaning the US and policymakers in general—are getting smarter about what the topics are. So I don't have any dramatic concern saying if we don't get this fixed immediately, we're not going to be able to move forward. But I do think there are some structural issues that we're going to have to address, but I am confident those are at least being discussed right now.
So in talking about the governance frameworks, you mentioned early in the conversation that obviously it's not just the United States that's involved in space; it's other countries as well. How much do you think there needs to be a focus on the US putting in place the right frameworks versus how we engage with other countries and that international framework?
Yeah, it's a very thoughtful question. I think we need to provide leadership here, Brian. I really do, because I think if we don't, I'm not sure it's going to happen necessarily. There are other organizations looking at policy issues, like the World Economic Forum, the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and others. But I think it's really a US policy opportunity here, and I think people are looking at this. I mentioned George Whitesides and others in Congress I think are smart about these issues, and I think there's an opportunity for us to create a framework here. And I think if we create a framework, we can get alignment from international partners. Again, with the China issue, they're going to have their own approach. How we reconcile our approach and China's approach, I think, is going to be a central question. But I think that's true here on Earth, right, on terra firma as well. I think there are a lot of parts of the world where Chinese policy and US policy are not in sync, and we're going to have to reconcile the same to space.
To me, that is one of the big questions that I'm not sure we have a great handle on it. I think you're right: if we do end up having two or maybe even more frameworks or at least philosophies on this, I think that makes it a lot harder to do the kind of integration that you were talking about earlier in the conversation. I'll say I personally am not sure just how different those frameworks may be. I look at some of the comments that have been made by the Chinese delegation and others in places like COPUOS where they're discussing space resources, and at least on the surface and publicly, there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of difference there. And if you look at what the Chinese government and companies plan to do in space, they're planning to do a lot of the same: resource extraction, lunar ice, all the things we're talking about. So part of me wonders if they're going to do the same things, that means they have the approach, but I don't know, right? So I think that is one of the fundamental questions we're grappling with is: are we all on the same page, or are we going to have competing ideas and visions?
Yeah, I think that's right. And I think it's things like property rights—like presumably China's aligned on that, but I think that's an open question. The second is what happens in a dispute, right? I think that's kind of the second central question. But one other thing that I'm hopeful of, and this is where industry can provide a leadership role, are standards, right? So if we focus on what are some of the international standards that matter for space-based infrastructure and get corporations around the world to align around those—I'm not talking about technology transfer, I'm not talking about ITAR, I'm not talking about any of that, I'm talking about base standards. Think of it as the docking adapter on the International Space Station. I think those kinds of things could provide a bridge where we're reducing the friction for different parts of the world to work together on space-based infrastructure. And the policy almost kind of falls out of that a bit because then it becomes like we want to protect our interests as opposed to we have to create this framework to actually have an interest. So I think standards are underappreciated for being gateways to creating alignment globally.
And maybe underappreciated in their role in other parts of our world, right? We were talking about transportation earlier. How much of the maritime transportation world is enabled by the standardization of the cargo container, right, and what that does for that whole system? In the space world, each satellite is kind of still a unique butterfly in terms of being made. So we're not quite there yet, but to me, that's something that sticks out as one of the things that we might want to think about or could be a great enabler for the space stuff.
Yeah. I mean, think of Wi-Fi protocol if you went to a hotel in Brazil and you needed a special router or something, right? So there's lots of examples of that, Brian, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: figuring out what those opportunities are for global standards, and I think that can create a lot of forward momentum for collaboration.
Building off of that, we talked a bit about sort of the governance policy framework. Are there any technical challenges you see to getting to this vision? We talked about how the rocket transportation piece has come a very long way. Are there other pieces of technology or things that you think really are going to be critical to figure out the next few years to get to that 20-year vision?
I do. I would say lunar power. That's the number one impediment, I think, to achieving lunar objectives at scale. We have to have enough power. And I know NASA's looking at things like nuclear, which they absolutely should. Persistent polar solar is being looked at. But I think we've got to solve some of these transmission issues, let's say. So this could be like wireless transmission of power on the lunar surface, which brings up a whole another issue, which is: how do you do that in a dusty environment? And of course, anything that happens on the lunar surface kicks up dust, as we know. So then we need new lunar coating technologies to ensure that we're keeping dust to a minimum. So there's all kinds of technology contributors, but fundamentally everything is derivative of power. If we don't have enough power on the Moon, we're not going to be able to build the infrastructure, we won't be able to do the resource extraction, we won't be able to build the mass driver that Gerard O'Neill talked about that Elon's now working into his talking points, which I love because I'm an O'Nealian. But it's all derivative of power, Brian. I think that's the number one thing. If I was a policymaker on lunar strategy, I would really, really, really be focused on power right now. I think that's a key enabler.
Yeah. And again, back to the discussion about connecting this back to what's going on terrestrially, we're having that discussion terrestrially, right? What does the future power look like? What are the sources? How do we have the energy we need to do all the things we want to do with data centers and other kind of power-hungry things? I think uniquely on the Moon, the real question is surviving in the lunar night, right? I'm not sure everyone really understands that on the Moon you've got 14 days of daylight and 14 days of nighttime; the nighttime is really, really cold. So I think that's a big part of what you're talking about in terms of the power.
Exactly. Yeah, persistent power and, to your point, just the harshness of the lunar night, for sure. At the poles, I think there are persistent sunlight opportunities—a narrow part of the pole—but then that becomes: how do you distribute that power, right? By the way, we can solve these problems, Brian. Technologically, I don't think these are long putts, as they say, but it just requires a grand vision and smart people to sit down and kind of map it out. And I don't think there's one path to glory either; I think there's multiple paths to glory. But I do think it's not being talked about enough, because without the power, as I said earlier, I'm not sure any of these infrastructure projects can happen. So I think power is definitely the limiting factor at this stage.
Speaking of infrastructure, that prompts a question about investment. When we think of terrestrial economies, there's all these different models for how you fund big-scale infrastructure development. I'm thinking of ports, or development authorities, those sorts of things. Do you have any thoughts on what that might look like for the Moon, or what we might do to enable some of that kind of building out that level of infrastructure for your three L's?
Yeah, I think a couple things. I think it's important that we have consistent policy on this. So what would not be ideal is if in 36 months we had a new president and a new administrator, and they said, "Hey, we want to go to Mars and not the Moon," right? And you and I have seen that movie before, Brian, where it's lunar or Mars, lunar, Mars. I don't think that's going to happen. I think lunar is very bipartisan at this point. I believe that; could be wrong, and I don't know who's going to be the next president, of course, but I think that's a risk. So this consistent policy direction where investors know, if they invest, that there's a reasonable chance that the infrastructure projects will be completed and a return on investment will be generated—I think that's the most important thing. Think of that as market signal, if you will.
The second most important thing, I think, is the government actually seeding it with R&D capital, whether Space Act Agreements or the like, to get at least some forward momentum. If the first point I made is Sisyphus with the boulder rolling back down the hill, we need forward momentum to actually get the boulder going.
And then I think the third point is a promise of services contracts on the back end. So let me just take lunar power, for example. If the government were to say, "Look, we need a lunar power grid, and we're accepting bids on that. We think this is a priority"—and I think they're doing this on nuclear—and provide an opportunity to do some Space Act Agreement or seed capital for that, and make it clear that after that competition, the government will enter into a services agreement to contract for that power, either on a per-use basis or to actually buy a power station, for lack of a better analogy. I think those are the kinds of things that help unlock the capital markets. Now, there still might be a plug there; I don't think it's going to be completely efficient because these are longer-term timeframes. So I think it'll still be a challenge for companies to find the right capital provider, and it might not be the public markets—it might be a sovereign wealth fund that has maybe a longer-term view. But I think all of these things reduce friction.
So just in summary: clear policy in terms of "this is what we're going to achieve"—similar to what Jerry did with Ignite, just stay the course in terms of what that vision is; the second is the equivalent of seed capital on these Space Act Agreements or other things to get the ball rolling; and then the third is a recognition that after the technology milestones are achieved and the competition has been won by one or more providers, that there will be services agreements on the backside of that. I think that's the right model.
Going back to what you opened up with, which is your vision of the three L's—low Earth orbit, lunar, Lagrangian—do you think those are distinct? In other words, do we invest in LEO, or do we invest in lunar or Lagrangian, or are they more connected than people might realize?
I think they're more connected. Power applies to all three. I'll give you another example: we made a strategic investment in Max Space. Max Space does inflatable, expandable habitats. I really am bullish on the technology. It's been around for a while, as you know, Brian, but back to what I said earlier, that technology is starting to mature; they have really matured this technology. So you can imagine an expandable habitat being applicable to LEO—maybe this is attached to Starlab, our space station, as an expandable additional volume on the station—but it also is directly applicable, and I'm probably even more excited about this, for lunar habitat. Because if you look at different mechanisms to create lunar habitat, I think expandables is one of the best design parameters that you could come up with. And then similarly, if you're thinking about building an outpost at a Lagrangian point, either for data collection, or experimentation, or proving grounds for deep space technology, I think inflatables also apply. So whether it's data transmission, power generation, habitation, radiation hardening, advanced electronics, all of these have applicability to all three of those L's. So I do see a roadmap where we can invest in technology—we meaning the royal we, the US and other parties—that are directly benefiting all three of those domains.
I want to return to a point you made or term you used: "O'Nealian." I think you're referring to the three major camps in the space community. Can you just explain that for the listeners who may not be familiar with that?
Yeah. So Gerard K. O'Neill was a professor at Princeton, beloved in the '70s, died too soon unfortunately, had leukemia. But he was notable because he really worked out this notion that once you're out of a gravity well, the silliest thing you could do, at least from his vantage point, is to dig yourself back into another gravity well. So his thought was to build infrastructure in free space, in these Lagrangian points and elsewhere. And his vision, which I think is a brilliant vision—I think Bezos is an O'Nealian in many respects as well—is this notion that you get heavy industry off the Earth and ultimately the Earth becomes a national park; it becomes a Shangri-La. Heavy industry becomes off-world, people can live and work in space, and you can have anything from a space colony out at L5 to a mass driver on the Moon producing resources and materials. And I think this is what Elon's talking about now, which is great. So that's really the notion of O'Neill.
There are other camps, like the Sagan—Carl Sagan camp—which says humans shouldn't be in space; it should be mostly robotics, and humans should stick to their knitting here on Earth, and all of our missions really should be robotic-based missions. And of course, each of these camps have their own wisdom, right?
And then the third camp, which would be undefined, which is we actually need to go to another planet, we need to terraform another planet. This is probably best represented by Elon: we need to diversify consciousness, and the Moon isn't sufficiently diverse from the Earth, because if an event happens here on the Earth, the Moon's going to be impacted by that. So I think all three of these camps have their benefits, their wisdom. I don't think they're mutually exclusive; I think a lot of them are self-reinforcing. But I am attracted to this O'Neill vision of getting heavy industry off Earth. I think that's a wonderful view, because I'm one of the few people who had the opportunity to see the Earth from space, right? I did that suborbital flight, Brian, in December '21. So I've seen the Earth from space; it's a life-changing moment. And one of the things you realize is that this is a precious jewel and it's an absolute miracle that we're here. And so when you have that sort of deep inside of you, you want to protect it. And so that's why I think I'm more of an O'Nealian than anything else.
I think it's a beautiful place to leave our conversation for today. Thank you very much for joining us and sharing with us your vision for the future.
Thank you, Brian. Great to be with you.
All right, back to you, Colleen.
Thank you both. Let's go now to the CEO and co-founder of Varda Space Industries, Will Bruey, for his perspective on enabling the space economy for LEO. He's talking to Dr. Jen Stein. She's Director of Strategic Foresight here at the Center for Space Policy and Strategy. Jen.
Thanks, Colleen. And hello, Will. Thanks for joining us today. Thanks for taking the time to discuss enabling the in-space economy with us. I'd just like to start out if you could briefly introduce yourself and tell us about your company, Varda.
Absolutely. Yeah, thanks for having me, and great to see you, Jen. My name is Will Bruey. I'm co-founder and CEO of Varda Space Industries. Before this, I was an engineer at SpaceX and also spent some time in investment banking before founding Varda. What Varda is, is we make pharmaceuticals in the microgravity of outer space, because you can create formulations that would otherwise be impossible on Earth due to gravity, and then we bring them back for patients on Earth.
Very cool. Yeah, I've been reading up a lot on the work that you're doing. And as part of the foresight team here at Aerospace, we're thinking about these possible space futures across multiple lenses like technology, culture, economic activity, and governance and policy, of course, being part of the policy center. So let's imagine it's 2046. It's 20 years from now. Varda has been operating for 25 years. So what's happening in the space economy these days in 2046?
Yeah, in 2046, the space economy is going to look a lot more like the regular economy. You won't really notice a difference between the terrestrial economy and the space economy like you do today where they're kind of bifurcated. You'll see it as kind of one big economy. The way I think our kids will think about space is kind of how people think about the ocean today, where it's this big, vast, enormous thing, but you don't think of the ocean economy versus the rest of the economy, and I think that'll be the same for space at this time.
So for Varda, how many flights and re-entries are you expecting on a monthly basis? What kinds of payloads? What's coming back? What are you imagining for that?
Yeah, absolutely. We'll be using space in the same way that the ocean gets used in the US economy, in the sense that we're capturing value that can only be found in outer space. Whether for the ocean it's things like transportation, going from one country to another, or fishing and that sort of thing. For outer space, the big thing we're doing at Varda is leveraging microgravity, which is fundamentally impossible on Earth in perpetuity compared to when you're in the free fall of orbit. And so we're going to space to utilize it and then bringing those products back. So you'll see at Varda, you'll see our vehicles go to space and back routinely up and down on a daily cadence, just shipping to and from like you'd be shipping to Milwaukee. And in outer space, we'll be making the pharmaceuticals that can only be made in outer space and then, of course, turning right back around and bringing them back to Earth for patients here. So you'll see shipping to space is becoming just shipping, and that will become more and more true going forward.
Cool. So, you know, there's some regulatory and policy decisions that have to be made between sort of now and 2026 and 2046 to get to there. What do you see as those sort of policy decisions that will be really integral into this vision for the next 20 years that have either sort of enabled this or sort of constrained these possibilities?
Yeah, absolutely. I think the good news is that I think the regulators actually want to see a happy, exciting, prosperous future as well. And so whenever I've seen quote "constriction" in regulation, it's really because writing legislation and regulation just takes time. And so regulators are trying to figure out how to squeeze a round peg into a square hole because when the regulation was written, it was designed for square holes and now we only have round pegs, and that sort of thing. So the good news is that I think everyone involved, the intent is there. So anything that's constricting really is just a matter of time. One of the things I say to a lot of the employees here at Varda is when we have to deal with regulators and regulation, I say it comes with the territory. If you're going to push back the boundary of human achievement, then you have to deal with regulation because regulators aren't going to regulate something that doesn't exist yet. So it kind of comes with the territory. That being said, since everyone around the table wants this future to exist, I see it as just a matter of time. So it really goes back to the first part of your question, I think more of like, "Well, how can we make the regulation for 20 years from now be suitable for the activities of 20 years from now?" And what I think that looks like is really understanding a few first principles of what that economy looks like, and then at least keeping that long-term first principle in mind while writing the regulation. So, for example, shipping to space is becoming just shipping—that is kind of the ultimate first pillar of all of this. So how should you write regulation, understanding that launch and re-entry is basically just going to be shipping? Then let's talk about while you're up there. In a very similar situation to the ocean, it's very vast. You don't really need to carve out land, but there is a real estate aspect, especially in GEO, where you have satellites that can only be in a certain location. That being said, even in GEO, there's still a lot of space if you just think about how literally big the Earth is and then recognize that space is even bigger than that, significantly. So understanding what real estate things make sense and what don't. And then also understanding the last thing about real estate is that real estate is inherently moving, which is kind of a weird thing to say. It's kind of like if you imagined your city streets were kind of just on a conveyor belt and they were constantly moving, your house was constantly moving. And kind of having that aspect in mind where real estate is, by definition, dynamic, because if you're in an orbit, you're circling Earth by definition. So it's not like you're static up there. So a few of these pillars I think would be very helpful to keep in mind, but nothing overly prescriptive, of course, because that's on the burden of the engineers like ourselves to build that future and then regulate it.
