Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for sitting in here. We have Adam Spice, CFO of Rocket Lab. So we'll run through a bunch of stuff today. Let's start with the launch side before we move to kind of the space system satellite side of things. So we'll start with Electron. Maybe just talk about where we are in terms of your production cadence, launch cadence, how much capacity you have,
where we could get to in terms of uh electron yeah so yeah electron is the our workhorse today on the launch side of the business we've got neutron coming to market we'll talk about a little bit later uh we've launched electron 88 times last year we launched it 21 times this year you know upper upper 20s is probably the right way to think about the cadence uh so it's had a pretty good growth clip to it uh we sized our factory and our our infrastructure to do one launch per week So we're kind of approaching a little bit more than half of that as we exit 2026. In order for us to double that again, we'd probably have to put some more factory footprint in place. I think we're pretty good from a pad perspective. We have three launch pads. We have two in New Zealand. We have one at Wallops. And across those pads, we're licensed to launch roughly 140 times per year. So we have a lot of launch capacity. Factories, we're going to need a little bit more, but, you know, Electron is a relatively small vehicle, not a lot of heavy infrastructure. We could probably double production, probably take us two years and probably cost us a few tens of millions of dollars, but not a lot, not a lot. So we think we're at a good spot. The demand has been continuing to grow. We found new applications for the vehicle, most recently in the form of these Haste missions for doing hypersonics R&D work, and that's growing really quickly. that's probably the fastest growing piece of the portfolio for electron but we're also seeing a lot of growth uh there's been tremendous amount of growth on the international side of electron um and then as more and more questions have come around with regards to kind of availability of you know kind of ride share access on things like the you know spacex transporter missions it's it just kind of puts even more kind of a demand kind of focus on electron so we think that the growth
is going to continue to be strong electron and the mix of haste versus non haste where it is say where it can go to what that means for for you know price
per launch so haste this year will represent around 20% of the total launches and again it's the fastest growing piece of the portfolio you can think about haste probably having a 30 to 50% CAGR on it at this point you know for the near term and the rest of the portfolio of electron kind of being in the 20% CAGR range. And if you look at pricing, you know, a haste mission averages around 10 million versus Electron commercial launches, which are more in the, call it, eight to nine million dollar range. We do have missions that are quite a bit higher than that. Not really, I think, lower than that in the backlog. We occasionally get higher mission ASPs when people come with late-breaking needs that we have to prioritize and, you know, the customers
willing to pay for that um yeah um transition over to neutron talk about where we are in terms of timeline there and the key gating steps uh from here to first launch yeah so neutron uh you know
it's been it's getting put through its paces and its components like the the subsystems of the rocket so you know usually the longest pole in the tent of a rocket program is propulsion And propulsion's kind of progressing well. You know, we posted some videos recently showing, you know, full duration hot fire tests with the engines, gimbling, and so forth. So we think we're in good shape there. We're now testing the vacuum-optimized upper stage engine that's doing well. So now what we do is we basically, now the engines are, quote, unquote, working. You basically have to put them through what's called the run box, which is all the different conditions in which the engines have to operate, different fuel mixtures, relight temperatures, ambience, all the kind of stuff that affect kind of the real world conditions. And so that's just a matter of kind of getting through all of those and things are progressing well. And then if you think about the avionics, that's another typical risk pocket on a development program, but we're leveraging a lot of the electronics and avionics from electron for neutron. So pretty low risk there. And we feel good about where we're at. The infrastructure is in place. So the launch pad is ready to go. Factories are producing engines we're producing uh an archimedes engine every eight days which is the engine for uh for for neutron and so those are just you know kind of returning those so we can continue doing a lot of a lot of testing um and i'd say you know the the tanks and structures are the are the next kind of work stream that one we had an issue in february on our booster tank where we had a tank rupture we got the tank up to the flight pressures but we didn't get to the margin we usually push beyond that as we push beyond the 100 percent of flight pressures then basically the tank let go we ultimately root cause that to be a manufacturing issue from a third party and so now we're manufacturing the current and future tanks on our afp or automated flight fiber placement machine so should eliminate those kind of workmanship type of issues but clearly i think the big risk item is we got to get that that tank back on the test stand and get it through its hydrostat and its cryostat and all of that right now is kind of you know scheduled to be in the call it the August time frame and we're trying to pull that in a little bit into July but everything right now is still pointing towards you know an opportunity to launch in before the end of the year so
how far have you built ahead on neutron at this point I guess what is the
production system is geared to do what so at this point we're scaling the production system to be able to produce up to four neutrons per year and now at this point we are already starting to build we kind of refer to them as tails so this first flight is tail one and tail two tail three we're working on elements of tail three at this point and for example on the engines we're still kind of as we put the engines through their paces you know we're we're kind of getting to the point where we'll have that full set of ten flight engines because you need nine on the booster and you'd want on the upper stage but again as I mentioned, we're in a position to roll an engine off every eight days, so it doesn't look like engines will be any kind of a gating factor. Now that we're on the automated fiber placement machine for tanks, that shouldn't be a gating item. So we really don't see anything that prevent us from ramping, and you got to be a little bit careful because, you know, what we don't want to do is, you know, we fly the first rocket and realize, oh, you know, we probably want to change a few things for flight two and flight three. So we're building ahead to things we think are very low risk of having to be iterated because we don't want to take a bunch of write-offs on
kind of in process stuff okay um the plan for reusability when when you when you test reusability when you target reusability and i guess how do you view the risk around
the potential for reusability well we started working on reusability several years ago when we were looking to bring electron into reasonable form right so falcon 9 didn't start off as a reasonable launch vehicle but they they iterated their way to that and we were progressing down that similar path with electron but then decided to prioritize neutron development over electron reuse just because the the value in getting that rocket to market first but in the process we we've re-entered 10 electrons from from space back into the atmosphere so we understand how the materials behave. The materials are slightly different for the composites for Neutron are slightly different and ideally better than than Electron for reentry purposes. But every time, well not every time, but several missions that we reentered Electron, we were actually testing out materials for Neutron on those missions. We've relit engines, we've done all kinds of things. So we think we're in a pretty good position of having done this now 10 times on Electron to be in a good position. We're not really doing it for the first time on Neutron. But the plan right now is the first mission its goals are to basically prove that the the rocket could deliver mass to orbit do a re-entry of the vehicle and then do a propulsive soft landing in the ocean that rocket will basically sink to the bottom of the ocean the second rocket which we currently have planned for about six months after the first successful test launch that one is planned to again this case deliver a payload return to the atmosphere and actually land on our barge and then we're going to take that rocket and we're going to use it for post-morteming so that won't refly the third tail is the one where we plan on launching it bring it back and putting that back into service in one form or another whether it's the full rocket or whether it's you know we have to replace some of the elements on the rocket whether it's some avionics some of the propulsion but that's the kind of and then things kind of increasingly get to full reusability over the
course of the next few flights after that. How many boosters will you build? I think it depends
on on how successful we are at surviving re-entry right so I think right now the ultimately we you know we can foresee a need for say a half dozen boosters in the fleet. Our goal is to be able to fly or is designed to fly up to 20 times. We've now seen Falcon 9's you know kind of do over 30 reflights, but different materials usage, like, you know, they're using stainless steel and aluminum tanks and so forth. It's a little bit, quite a bit different, actually. So if we can get to the 20 flights, you know, we think a fleet of six vehicles gives you the opportunity to fly, you know, quite a few times, approaching perhaps, you know, 100 times per year with a fleet of about six. If you have any kind of reasonable reuse model of, let's say you fly your boosters, you know, once every 30 days, which is kind of where Falcon is right now.
okay um let's transition over talk about space systems a bigger part of your business see that's less attention um less sexy yeah yeah but uh and what you're doing there is really really interesting um talk about all the capabilities you kind of build out over you know build out and acquired over the you know past couple of years and kind of where you are in terms of being you know very vertically integrated on the uh on this ally side of things yeah it's definitely been
a a journey i mean it's been a very conscious one uh you know i kind of think back to when i interviewed with peter beck for this role about eight years ago actually close to nine years ago now um i asked him what his vision was for the company and you know if he'd said oh i'm i'm out to build the most dominant small dedicated launch company on the planet i would have said oh that's interesting, but probably not big enough, right, as far as what I'm interested in. And so what he laid out at that time, he's been very, very consistent, is this vision of being an end-to-end space company where we started with small launch because it was actually doable, right, from a capital perspective and infrastructure because we didn't have limitless capital like some other space companies, you know, that, you know, when you think about the people that we compete with, two of which are two of the richest people on the planet, right, so they have a lot of access to capital. So we started off as something that was doable, which was Electron. We achieved that, but he says, I'm going to do Electron. And then very quickly thereafter, once I prove that that works, I'm going to basically start building out the capabilities to build satellites in a very vertically integrated way, because ultimately my goal with Rocket Lab is not to just be a launch company, but I actually want to have my own assets on orbit that I generate recurring revenue from, because that's the real goal here. And so there's a lot of parallels. We see what SpaceX has accomplished they've just done it very very quickly and very successfully part of the part of because they've had such great access to capital they all said phenomenal you know engineering execution as well but that's the same we had we share the same goal so in order to do that we kind of started off and we literally got in a conference room with all of our key people and said okay we're now going to start building satellites and we literally did block diagram explosions of what is a satellite and all the way from things like you know attitude direction and control, to in-space propulsion, to solar power and batteries and tanks and so forth. And we said, okay, where are the real choke points in all this? And we started to break them down and say, well, if you want to have a satellite orbit, you need to be able to do pointing and stabilizing. So let's go order some reaction wheels and star trackers and sun sensors. And so we called up Doug Sinclair that owned Sinclair Interplanetary. And we said, they were the leader in the small set element of the market and said, we want to order some of these reaction wheels. And he said, okay, well, you'll get them about 12 months from now and they're going to cost you x and pete's like well that's not going to work right if new space is going to live up to the growth potential that we all see for it we got to do things in a very different way so let's just buy them and then we did that so we bought sinclair that was our first acquisition they were making about 150 reaction wheels a year last year we we shipped over uh 2 000 reaction wheels right and so it's we we tend to buy these small very capable proven heritage products and then apply the rocket lab kind of production capabilities and scale them pretty aggressively so that's kind of how we've gone about a kind of a methodical way of picking up out all the pieces so we started reaction wheels and star trackers and sun sensors then we basically bought a software company that controls those elements of this great craft called ASI and then we just continued to build off of that and most recently we acquired a company called motive that makes solar actuators so basically the things that help your solar panels deploy when they get on orbit very important piece because if those hinges and and actuators fail, then your mission fails. So we're very careful about picking things that de-risk each mission, right? And so, you know, things like solar, well, but we also kind of just don't assume that we have to buy these things. So for things like radios, we've actually developed and manufacture our own radios. You may have seen, we announced a new product called Gauss, which is an in-space electric propulsion system. Again, we could have gone out and acquired an EP company, but rather than that, you know, Rather than spend a couple hundred million dollars in payoffs and VCs, Pete said, give me $15 million in 18 months and I'll go do it myself. And that's exactly what we did. So we've got the luxury of not having to buy everything that we need. We can actually develop it ourselves as well. So it's been a combination of inorganic, working our way into all the key subsystems on a satellite. And then most recently, well, not most recently, but the new addition to our capabilities. Last summer, we acquired a company called Geost to get the payload capability. So you can think of a satellite bus as being kind of the functional chassis of a satellite, and the payload makes it do a specific thing, whether it's taking a picture, communicating. In this case with Geost, it's an infrared sensor for doing missile warning, missile track. So each satellite's got a different payload to meet its application. So now we forayed into making the payloads as well. So now we can provide a complete solution to the customer. So the embodiment of that is, you know, for SDA Tranche 3 tracking layer win that we got late last year for $816 million, that basically now we provide the full solution. It's our bus. It's our payload. I mean, hopefully down the road those satellites launch on Neutron so we can kind of get that full value chain of going all the way from satellite design, manufacturing, launch, and then ultimately, again, when we own our own constellation assets, operate those on orbit.
You didn't mention Miranek.
Yeah, so... That's a big one. So Menarik is... Menarik, sorry. Yeah, everyone pronounces it differently. I thought I had it right. Yeah, well, so Menarik makes optical terminals. So basically, those are the devices that sit on the satellites and let the satellites talk to each other through high-speed, very secure optical links. So if you think about any constellation of size going forward is likely to have these optical links versus RF links. um and so yeah it's a very key foundational capability uh it also gives us a beachhead in europe uh europe is a very protected market they will only buy american when they have to buy american unless you have a presence there where you're actually considered a european supplier because you make it on the ground there so we now have you know a very modern capable factory with several hundred people over there pumping out optical terminals and there's an opportunity for us to produce other existing Rocket Lab products in that factory and be branded Europe. So I think it's a big, not only does it bring key foundational technology, but it brings market access with it as well. So we're actually very, very excited about that deal. I think acquisitions have been a big part of our strategy for growth, and I think they'll continue to be. But again, we just look at any way as possible to grow the business as fast as possible.
Are there any, I mean, you talked about on PwSA being able to kind of, you know, build, build the and do the entire thing. But are there any missing pieces you feel like in terms of what you still need from a sat perspective?
I would say at this point, the piece that we that we still rely on third parties for. And anytime we have a reliance on third parties, it's uncomfortable. Because one thing that we've learned in this market is if you build a dependence on your supply chain, it's going to burn you at some point. Right. So it's really on the RF signal chain part where we are relying on third parties. So we use third parties for our beam steerable antenna arrays, for our modems, for our antennas, for those kinds of elements of that, the encryption boxes. So over time, I think you'll find us kind of in source a lot more of those capabilities. Fortunately, they're out there. I mean, these I don't think for most of the elements that we would need to bring in house, these are not billions of dollars. These are tens of millions, if not maybe hundreds of millions of dollars of acquisitions and or internal development.
So you talked a little bit about PwSA, but what about SBI, how you're participating there at this point, Space Interceptor?
That's, you know, it's an exciting but admittedly early opportunity, right? I think that that's a I kind of view that opportunity as kind of a little bit of a risk on risk where, you know, you put risk money up to prove that you can get through a couple of technical hurdles and technical gates. If you get through those, then there's some level of reimbursement for that R&D that you put at risk, which then lets you take an even bigger bite of the apple in the next phase. And ultimately, if you get through all those phases and you keep getting some kind of return on that risk R&D, not a lot. I mean, that's not where the money to be made is. You ultimately think if the program was to go into production, which would require, you know, the whole congressional budget approval to get through, which has all the political risk dynamics associated with it, then there's potentially a very big prize at the end of that. So we're partnering with Raytheon on that program. we you know each company brings its unique strengths and capabilities we think we're well positioned we are fortunate we have got so much of what we need to deliver for that program already kind of in-house and so the incremental cost for us to go support these kind of things is relatively low so for us we've got I kind of view it as a a nice option on a big opportunity that doesn't require a huge amount of kind of P&L burden at this point. So I think, but as the program, if the program continues, then I think that those R&D investments are going to kind of increase, and that'll take a little bit more, I think, scrubbing and scrutiny. But I think, you know, we're excited about the opportunity. We think we've got the best partner you could partner with there in Raytheon. So we think it could be a really big kind of needle-moving program for the company over the next several years if it comes through.
So you talked about the ultimate goal here is to put up your own constellation, and have a business, you know, capture the economics around that. I mean, what kind of timeline are we looking at before that becomes, you know, a potential reality and thoughts on what kind of business that would go to serve at this point?
Well, you know, I think we're pretty fortunate in that on the launch side of the business, you get to see a lot of different business models, right? we've seen what i've seen come and go over the last eight years has been pretty interesting um you know if you were to rewind the clock to you know 2018 2019 a lot of excitement was around you know kind of new space business models of you know putting earth observation satellites up to count cars in walmart parking lots and you know kind of you know see how low oil tankers were sitting in the water to see how much oil you know all that kind of stuff none of those things really developed, right? It was supposed to be for insurance markets for, you know, after hurricanes and earthquakes and all kind of stuff, but that really didn't develop. What really did develop was government, right? So government has become the hockey stick for our business in a lot of ways, both domestic and international governments. So if you think about applications out there, you know, the biggest opportunity, the biggest TAM has historically been on the communication side of things. So we've all seen how Starlink has grown pretty dramatically. That type of application is probably out of our wheelhouse at this point, just given the amount of capital it would take to do that. And we think that it's probably pretty well addressed between what Amazon is doing, what SpaceX is doing. But there are different verticals within comms that could end up being more attractive. They're a little bit more protected, if you will, and more actionable. And part of what we have to align to is the fact that whatever we do from a Constellation perspective, it's going to be serviced by Neutron. So you have to align Neutron capacity availability with when you want to deploy your own stuff, right? So right now, if you look, we're actually, we're booking Neutrons for customers, right, for third parties. Ultimately, we want to use Neutron for our own needs. But, you know, if you look at our announced cadence of one launch this year, three launches next year, and five launches the year after that, you really start talking about 2029 before we'd actually have capacity of our own to start leveraging as neutron really starts to scale um because you know it wouldn't really make sense for us to you know kind of start thinking about deploying stuff on other people's rockets right so this is really focused on neutron's availability so you know neutron is very important for a lot of reasons it's not only important for our launch business for but it's very important for our own constellation ambitions as well so it's a it's it's absolutely uh you know a focused investment for us and we watch these other markets develop like you know will the direct to device market become big and real you know will other applications that develop that are people are working on right now i mean one thing we've seen is earth observation is a real market it's a relatively small market but it's real and it's growing uh comms is absolutely real and we've seen examples of that with again how spacex is growing but there's other parts of that market and now you've got secure government comms as an opportunity as well that's presenting itself and you know as we've seen you know star shield turn you know a government procurement of satellites into a service procurement kind of model which is pretty exciting so we think there's lots of different ways to pursue the application side of the business and we haven't talked about I'm sure on your list you one of those opportunities and people are talking about space-based data centers too which is like yeah I wasn't gonna shiny object literally I wasn't necessarily gonna go
there but i i wanted to ask about uh spacex and their transition to starship and away from falcon and you know most most of their big chunk of their falcon capacity has been going for starlink for themselves it hasn't actually about now we you know we don't really know ultimately the plan with falcon from here but i mean in a potential world you know they launched launched starlink on on Starship, and that frees up capacity from Falcon to sell into the marketplace. How do you think about that? What impact that potentially could have on Neutron and pricing in the market?
If you look at what SpaceX is really chasing from an opportunity set, I don't think that being in the merchant launch business is the best ROI for their focus. I mean, if you think about, like, the audacious plans they have around Starlink and around space-based data centers, taking other people's freight to orbit is probably not the best use of their time, right? So, and there's been a lot of rumors and speculation about whether Falcon 9 stays on the market for merchant capabilities or not. If it doesn't, I mean, we never counted on Neutron not having a Falcon 9 competitor. But the probability that that capacity that's currently being used for Starlink deployments would be made available to the merchant market doesn't seem like the most probable outcome. It seems more like if and when Starship works, they've obviously focused that on Starlink and also on the space-based data center opportunity. But then the merchant market becomes less and less of a focus for them. And because for us, I mean, you know, we kind of look at our approach has been because, you know, access to capital has been different. We've taken this crawl, walk, run approach where, you know, we've been selling picks and shovels as far as hardware to other satellite manufacturers to build out our own capabilities. Right. So in the process of of selling, you know, satellite subsystems to our satellite manufacturing competitors, we built out our capacity and our technology portfolio. Same thing on launch. We've proven out our launch capability and we've had our customers basically pay to develop that launch infrastructure and launch capabilities, which ultimately both of those things will use for our own needs. SpaceX didn't really need to do that as much because their access to capital. But now, given where they're going again, I think, you know, it's seeming it's seeming like that that Neutron is going to have a very nice spot in this market going forward once we can actually get it to a point where it can scale rapidly, which again, it's going to take a few years. But that's, you know, we're kind of, we have our plans well in place to be able to scale that vehicle pretty quickly.
So as Neutron comes online, what impact will there be to your margin profile, your cash flow? You know, you're going to build out boosters. How does that kind of play into, you know, the cash flow side?
So, you know, fortunately for, you know, because it's a reusable launch vehicle, you actually end up building the greatest number of boosters early in the program, right? Assuming success on those boosters, you're not putting them in the bottom of the ocean. But each time we build a booster, it's about $50 million. So if you assume that, you know, that I mentioned before you have a fleet of, say, a half a dozen of these boosters, that's about $300 million of capital equipment, if you will, that you're building out. and you know from a pad perspective again we've got the pad built out over time you know would we need to build out more pad infrastructure to support the volume increases yes and if you think about the the timing is takes about two years to build a new launch pad at an existing launch facility and it costs about a hundred million dollars uh you know on neutron we were able to get our have our government partners co-invest with us to about 50 of that but if you assume 50 to 100 million dollars per pad in two years lead time you know so let's say we had to build two two new pad infrastructures and six boosters you know you're really looking at around a half a billion dollars type of investment which is quite manageable in the context of the opportunity
that we're looking at for that for that vehicle and and the margin progression so margins you know
margins it it's it's a function of success on getting to rebuild reusability right so So the vehicle that is currently planned to launch at the end of this year, that's an R&D vehicle, no revenue associated with it. A lot of the R&D is already in the rearview mirror on that when it launches. The second tail that we talked about, that's going to be, you know, that'll be revenue associated with it, but either kind of neutral to negative margins on that one, on that first customer paying mission. By the time you get to reusability, then the question is going to be, okay, let's say the third vehicle that we fly lands successfully on the barge and is reused. Well, at that point, depending on how the auditors, we work with the auditors to get the treatment on that vehicle, that may also have been a fully expensed tail, in which case after that, you're not burdened, the COGS isn't burdened with the booster anymore. But at some point, you're going to get your model to the point where let's say that we're all in agreement that the vehicle's proven that it can fly 20 times. Well, then you're amortizing a $50 million booster over 20 missions, and the margins really become much more predictable and, you know, and I think predictably towards our model of 50%, non-gap gross margin. But there'll be a journey along the way, and there's going to be some volatility because at some point, you know, you may have agreed that you're going to try to amortize this booster over four flights, and maybe it flies eight times, right? And so you fully amortized a booster over four launches, and you get free boosters, essentially, for the next four missions. So there will be some volatility, but what we're looking to do is probably break out electron and neutron separately within our launch business. You can see that. So you can see the steady progression of electron, and you'll see that progression as well, the volatility associated with the neutron. So you can kind of form your own opinions about where margins will end up.
So as you think about the future state of business, I mean, maybe not thinking about putting up your own constellation. you know it seems a bit out there but you know the the launch versus space systems piece so space systems larger today more backlog but how do you think about kind of the relative um you know growth profile of the two parts of the business look at looking out beyond you know maybe the
next year or two yeah well if you go if you think again in the in the three to five year type of horizon you know we think there's a a 20 to 30 percent CAGR on electron from where we're at today so again if we let's say we're you know if we uh you know if we're launching kind of pushing towards let's get somewhere in the 25 to 28 launches this year on electron and you apply that 20 to 30 to that you can you can get you can and asps continue to drift up could that be you know call it a half billion to billion dollar business in the next three to five years yeah i think there's potential for that particularly as international governments look to do kind of more of what the U.S. has been doing. Now, Neutron, you know, I mentioned that 135 cadence. Well, you know, I think that once you can get that vehicle to be launching, you know, let's say a couple dozen times a year, which could be in that same time frame, and those come along at, you know, kind of 50 to $55 million ASPs. You're talking about another billion-dollar contribution from that. And I think we've been historically conservative on forecasting ASPs. So hopefully there's some upside to that, particularly, you know, who knows what the Falcon 9 dynamics are at that point in time. And then the space systems business has the biggest TAM in front of it, right? So that's the one where, you know, we've got pretty broad exposure to kind of a rising tide, you know, raising all ships thing where we sell into everybody who's playing into these major programs globally. So that business has got a lot of big opportunities in front of it. So I would say that I still see space systems being bigger than launch. It's probably, I think the mix between launch and space systems will probably, today it's 70% space systems, 30% launch. Could I see it getting closer to maybe 60-40 or 55-45 in favor of space systems? Yeah, I can see that. But I think the growth is still going to be, I think in the near term, stronger on space systems until Neutron really kind of hits its stride.
okay um and then in terms of capital future capital only is you know you talked about the the investment on neutron that's out there you know you've had a lot of success with the atm in terms of raising capital um how do you think about potential future capital needs and obviously you've been a very active acquirer just how you're thinking about that and your preference for you using the atm program obviously stocks been been done very well so how do you think about future funding needs and how you might go about that yeah i think you know our our i would say with
the capital that we even that we've that we had exiting q1 i don't think there's and what we've talked about around needs for neutron we really don't need to raise any more capital for neutron or even our space systems business it's really all about inorganic it's like we want to have have plenty of dry powder to go kind of acquire strategic assets, which there are quite a few out there. I think that we're continuing to look for more needle moving kind of things. I think historically, if you look at the deals we've done, they've been very strategic vertical integration plays, bringing really unique capabilities into the portfolio, but they haven't been financial deals, right? We're requiring a lot of revenue and cash flow. So I think that's, you know, as we continue to evolve as a company, I think we're going to start to put more of those kind of deals in focus because it's really now about how do we get true scale into the business. And there are some inorganic ways of doing that, but we want to be well positioned to be able to capitalize on those.
Well, we're about out of time, so I think it's a good place to end. Adam, thank you for the time.