we continued to pay down debt. An adjusted EBITDA was $381 million, down 7%. But for the noted impacts of Navarino on lower IP licensing and AT&O, EBITDA would be just about flat. Excluding cash taxes from the gain on the sale of our interest in Navarino of about $30 million, which were paid in the first quarter of 2017, we generated positive free cash flow of $72 million, up 19%, and driven by operating cash flow of $291 million, which was up 13%, and capital expenditures of $219 million, which were up 11%. The first quarter is typically our toughest cash quarter given annual bonus payments, so I'm especially pleased to see strong cash generation. Our net debt relative to trailing EBITDA was approximately 3.2 times, a meaningful 0.4 times improvement versus the prior year period. Now, let's turn to some segment highlights. In communication services, awards of 774 million increased 3%, driven by aviation and maritime. Revenue was $825 million, approximately flat. Growth in aviation and government SACOM was offset by declines in residential fixed broadband and maritime. Aviation revenue grew 11%, ending with approximately 4,530 commercial aircraft in service. A 10% increase year-over-year combined with higher average revenue for aircraft. While we had a healthy quarter for installations, we had a number of aircraft deactivate service for previously announced transitions to a competing provider. Within aviation, we expect revenue growth for the remainder of the year driven by ARPA expansion as more of our customer base migrates to full fast free offerings, while units remain relatively stable to the units we ended the first quarter with. We have units flowing in and out of our aircraft backlog each quarter. This quarter's net new aircraft awards were positive and our backlog declined due to installations during this quarter. Our IFC backlog at quarter end was about 850 commercial aircraft. Government SATCOM revenue growth accelerated to 10 percent, reflecting good growth with increased usage from U.S. and international governments. We continue to work through challenges in maritime revenue declined 7% as vessels in service were down. We ended the quarter with more than 1,700 Nexus Wave vessels in service and continue to work on improving our installation rate while our current order book exceeds 1,400 vessels. Fixed services and other revenue was down 27% as U.S. fixed broadband subscribers continued to decline. We ended the quarter with 115,000 subscribers and a $111 average revenue per user. Communication services adjusted EBITDA was $311 million, down 3%, primarily driven by the decline in fixed services and other in maritime, which included the sale of our interest in Navarino for a $3 million headwind in the quarter. Turning to defense and advanced technologies performance during the quarter, our DAS segment awards $524 million increased 22%, driven by growth in space and mission systems and tactical networking. DAT awards are a leading indicator of future revenues. We continue to see a very strong growth environment for DAT, driven by both government and commercial opportunities for new technologies that will enhance our service businesses. DAT revenue was $331 million, down 4%, reflecting a decline in advanced technology and other and space and mission systems, partially offset by strong growth in tactical networking. Revenue would have been up about 2%, excluding the impact from lower IP licensing revenue previously noted. InfoSec and CyberDefense product revenues declined 8%, reflecting lower shipments of our high assurance encryption products. Timing of product delivery varies quarter to quarter based on multiple factors, including customer schedule. Despite the Q1 reduction, we expect strong growth in InfoSec and Cyber for fiscal 2017. Space emission systems revenue declined 24%, reflecting a supplier delay in one program and a transition from development to production on another program. However, similar to InfoSec and Cyber, we expect strong growth in space emission systems for the fiscal year, despite the Q1 decline. Tactical networking revenues were up 36% year-over-year, driven by strength in both our tactical communications products and Trellisware. Charlesware revenue growth was driven primarily by product sales to international customers as opposed to waveform royalties. Charlesware capital radio revenues are driven by a comprehensive portfolio of products, modules, and licenses that each embody unique technology. Advanced technologies and other revenue was down $17 million, reflecting the declining benefit from IP licensing revenue. Adjusted EBITDA was $70 million, down 20% or $17 million compared to the prior year quarter, primarily reflecting a decline in IP licensing revenue within AT&O. Excluding that IP licensing revenue adjusted EBITDA was up slightly. Now let's turn to our outlook. Our financial outlook for fiscal 27 is unchanged. We expect revenue to grow mid-single digits with communication services growth of low single digits, and debt growth in the mid-teens. We continue to expect our adjusted EBITDA of the fiscal year to be flat to up slightly year over year. Consolidated fiscal 27 capex is expected to be between $950 million and $1 billion. Our consolidated capex is expected to break down as follows. Maintenance of about $400 million, capitalized interest of greater than $150 million, Viasat-3 spend of about $50 million, most of which was incurred in Q1, success-based of up to $150 million, and about $225 to $250 million for growth CapEx, with an emphasis on future satellites other than Viasat-3, as well as investments in DAT segment and government satcom. Inmarsat CapEx is expected to be $250 to $300 million and is contained within the consolidated numbers I just guided to. We continue to expect free cash flow of about $180 million for fiscal year 27. Let's turn to our segments, beginning with communication services. Within aviation, we expect revenue growth compared to fiscal 26 as ARPA expands on unit counts similar to the Q1 ending number. However, we expect the overall rate of aviation revenue growth to moderate relative to recent years. We expect maritime vessels and service to decline modestly compared to fiscal 26, but expect significant growth in the Nexus Wave installed base that offers customers more value and drives higher ARPAs. We expect stabilization of our fixed broadband business to occur sometime after Viasat 3 Flight 2 enters service, but expect continued declines until that time. We expect another year of growth within governance.com. We've been waiting a long time for the capacity and capabilities of Viasat 3, Flights 2 and 3. We're excited to be on the customer service entry for both satellites. Thanks to all the teams who have made Viasat 3 a reality. Now, our focus is ensuring that the capabilities of Viasat 3 are mobilized to address the growing appetite our communication services customers have for connectivity and to position us for growth in years ahead. Turning to that, we expect a very good year ahead. Our teams are doing an awesome job of anticipating and meeting the growing needs of our customers, which is driving exciting momentum in awards that will drive revenue and earnings for years to come. We expect another year of strong revenue growth from encryption and accelerated growth from space emission systems and tactical networking. The team has continued to deliver big wins in the most important high growth markets. I'll also note that during the quarter, we did move an additional $100 million in cash from Inmarsat to Viasat. We've now moved a total of $450 million so far, including the $100 million this referenced. And we'll continue to evaluate opportunities to reshape our capital structure. In conclusion, we had a good quarter, so we continue to make progress on our financial We're excited for a lot of hard work ahead of us, and we remain focused on improving returns on capital through franchise and earnings growth, generating positive free cash flow, repaying debt, and reducing net leverage. We thank you for your continued support. Team Biasat is working to deliver our commitments for the year and beyond. With that, let me hand the call back to Mark. Thanks, Gary.

So the combination of growth in the space market and our business and technical progress is creating more opportunity for us than ever. The Biasat 3 deployments along with a number of other important space and ground technology accomplishments and competitive wins is building momentum in new markets and applications. Demand for resilient communications, secure networks, mission-critical connectivity, and space-enabled capabilities is clearly growing in both commercial and defense markets globally. NASA has never been defined by a single technology cycle satellite line for market trends. Our history has been built about continued innovation, reinvention, resilience, and the ability to adapt to changing customer needs. While the path forward won't be without challenges, we believe the foundation we've built and the opportunities ahead will continue to sustain our success. We enter the remainder of fiscal year 2027 with confidence in our strategy, momentum across key growth initiatives, and a clear focus on creating long-term shareholder value. Operator, you can now open the line for questions.

As a reminder, to ask a question, press star one on your telephone keypad. With respect for others, we do ask that you remember to limit questions to one and one follow-up. Our first question comes from the line of Timothy Horan with Oppenheimer. Please go ahead.

Thanks a lot, guys, and good quarter. There is some concern out there that S-SPAN spectrum holders outside the United States might lose some of the rights to that spectrum. Can you talk about your ownership rights and, you know, how much negotiating leverage you would have with governments out of the United States? And then secondly, on your L-band spectrum, can you maybe just, have you studied a little bit more further how much you would need of that spectrum to operate your current business versus maybe, you know, selling or leasing or partnering with someone to do, you know, to direct their vice or other services? Okay.

Well, first thing, I think I'd say just in terms of S-Band, you know, S-Band tends to be less globally coordinated with ITU rights and more around national market access when used for mobile satellite services. And it's the same for our spectrum as with others. The main thing we would say is that the best way to hold onto your spectrum is to put it in use for public benefit for the nations which have granted those market access rights. So our S-band is currently in use for the purpose that it was licensed for in Europe. And I think we're working with Europe on those particular missions and new missions. And I think we will work with the European Union and the individual nations to continue to evolve what we do and what they're looking for. I think we have good support within Europe, but I'm not going to make any particular predictions about our success to others at this point. I think we have, as the only incumbent that's actually using the spectrum for the purpose for which it's licensed, I think that gives us a good big up, but we'll just have to see on that one. On the L-Band, I think one of the main points that we want to make is that our L-Band is licensed, again, for specific mission purposes. We fulfill those purposes. They're generally really important involving maritime and aeronautical safety as two of the main ones. One of the things that is a little bit unique about L-Band is that in order to accomplish those missions, countries want to cooperate with each other, which is the purpose for which NMARSAT was originally formed. We still uphold those missions. And one of the main points is that the amount of bandwidth delivered, as opposed to spectrum, separating bandwidth is basically what you get the bits that you get through the spectrum the demand for bandwidth is increasing in performing those missions both in terms of maritime safety market and especially in the aeronautical safety market so so right now you know we what we are aiming at is not only fulfilling the current missions but the way that those missions are evolving and but what we think Because there's a good match between the spectrum that we have and the long-term purpose of those missions, as well as new applications that are evolving, such as D2D. Now we also use our spectrum for other valuable missions which are not necessarily associated with those particular safety missions.

We think the same thing will happen as we increase the network capabilities. using our next generations of constellations thank you your next question comes from the line of Brent Pinter with Raymond James please go ahead hey good afternoon everyone thanks for taking the question first one for me I'm glad to see F2 and F3 both at the finish line here obviously a ton of capacity coming online how do you envision the use of capacity split in in terms of serving existing customers versus the ability to bring new customers online. And can you just help us understand from the outside looking in, what are gonna be the biggest drivers of revenue and EBITDA growth as those come online?

Okay, well, first of all, the markets that we're in, primarily for monetizing our satellites now, mostly mobility kits, And that includes aeronautical, private aviation, commercial aviation, maritime, primarily vertical and maritime on large enterprise ships, and then government. So what we're aiming for, those are the biggest uses. We also have fixed, you know, fixed consumer use, which has, you know, obviously been declining over time, mostly because the other markets are a lot more attractive. The, so, well, and then the other, the other major mobility market is government mobility. So we expect, you know, we expect growth in basically all those markets. Probably, you know, the one right now, the one that's, The ones that are growing fastest are aviation and government. They're both growing from a combination of more bandwidth use per platform and more platforms. So those are really going to be kind of the keys to success. The aviation market is still relatively lightly penetrated, maybe in the range of 30-ish percent, I think, on a global basis. Because some of the market segments that are lower penetrated are going to be more challenging. But I think that the addition of more satellites, more capacity is going to help address those. Those being more of the international markets and also more of the low-cost carrier markets. So, in general, what you're seeing to the same in kind of all transmission markets is lower unit costs of bandwidth, but overtaken by much larger growth in consumption on a per unit basis. So, that's what we call ARPA, average revenue per aircraft in the aviation market. We're seeing the same effects in the maritime market, though, where consumption is growing because of new applications. We'll also see the same in aeronautical and are certainly seeing the same in aviation. So the simple message is similar vertical markets, more platforms, more usage per platform.

I think we'll also be able to bring, because we're getting large infusions of bandwidth, we will bring some of that bandwidth into the fixed. the fixed markets as well both consumer and we're seeing some opportunities for growth in fixed enterprise as well okay thanks mark and then you continue to talk about the benefits of vertical integration last quarter and in this quarter it seems increasingly it'd be good to get an update on the DAT strategic review and where you all are in terms of your thinking there and as As the satellites go into service, does that color how you think about whether a split makes sense or anything around timing?

Okay, yeah. When it comes to the DAT segment, I mean, right now what we're seeing is really good growth in those parts of the business that are in the DAT part. So that's defense and advanced technology. That's going to be the fastest-growing part of our business. that will be reflected in new awards. I think this was a strong quarter for new awards. Our pipeline is really attractive and I think that we'll provide updates as we get, you know, as we execute contracts. Some of those contracts you'll see possibly in defense, you know, in defense announcements before we can make those announcements and keep an eye on that. In terms of the review, it's ongoing. The main thing that we're looking at is what those particular contracts are and what the criteria are for winning them. So think of it as clearly our DAT business is going to grow. I'll give you one example, which is in PTSG, part of the award there was around technology, that is building low-cost, affordable, proliferated satellites, but another part of it is actually operating those satellites. So it's interesting to note that among the bidders, the ones that were successful were are the ones that could both provide technology and the operational capabilities. The government's looking, especially in a proliferated environment, for new mechanisms for operating satellites as well. So some of that, while the original awards will be reflected in the DAT segment, in the Longer term, we expect to see government communication services revenue as well. And if you look at our pipeline of new awards, that notion of integrated both technology development to technology production combined with operational capability is a recurring theme. So the very first thing on our plate is just to capture the awards, build the value of the DAT segment and what we're doing is we're having an ongoing evaluation of how do we best position that right for the benefit of shareholders what is the best you know what is the best way for shareholders to benefit and right now while the the DAT segment is co-resident with our operating business you know services businesses we don't have to worry about how we divide up the margins associated with that among different equity holders. So what we're looking at is just what is the best way to do that. It's possible that we continue to keep them together under one roof. We do that for some period of time. But the issue is that doing a separation is a little bit of a one-way door. We want to make sure that at the time we do that, if we do that, we do it in a way that most benefit shareholders.

Makes sense. Thanks, Mark.

Your next question comes from the line of Jane Retzer with Newstreet Research. Please go ahead.

Yeah, great, yes, thank you, Mark, for taking the question. So I had a couple, please. Just one, just really appreciate an update on plans for Equitus, if possible, please. And then secondly, just interested to explore if we can quantify how much new capacity is coming on with these new satellites. I mean, obviously, that's pretty exciting. there's a material growth coming on, but can you help us to kind of just think about that from a kind of quantitative perspective? What percentage increase in capacity, how many kind of gigabits or terabits per second come on with these new satellites over the next few years? Thanks so much.

Okay. So in terms of equities, our intent with the next major announcement would be The funding of the initial satellite constellation, that's really the catalyst for the next round of disclosures, and that really will be the answer to the second part of your question, which is how much new capacity will come online. I'm not going to talk about the timing of that announcement, but that is what we're focused on is the details of a satellite constellation procurement for Equitus and then what that means for each of the users of the Equitus constellation, with us and Space 42 being the two largest and initial users of it. In terms of the amount of increase in capacity, that's going to be orders of magnitude. The amount of capacity on a per satellite basis is going to be hundreds or thousands of relative. The relative capacity is a function not only of the satellites, but also of the types of terminals that are using them. When used in the types of applications that we have now, it'll be in the thousand to ten thousand-ish amount of total capacity on a global basis for the new constellation. So, that will cover higher speeds, higher volume, higher density of usage associated with these evolved MSS applications, some of which we think will be pretty substantial growth in that, especially for things like unmanned vehicles, both land and air vehicles. That's going to consume a lot of growth. And then also, we expect that we'll be able to apply a lot of that capacity towards other markets, too, especially the D2D market and government markets. But I think the increase in capacity is going to be in orders of magnitude. We'll be able to find that more clearly when we describe the initial constellation in more detail.

Got it. Thank you. And how much also just comes on from the kind of the F2 and the F3, just the kind of the geo-satellites in the immediate future?

So the F2 and the F3 satellites are Ka-band. Those are broadband satellites. Those require directional antennas. The Equitus conservation will be mobile satellite services band, which is the LNS band. So we don't, there will be, think of it as a continuum of missions, so we'll have aeronautical uses for broadband, which will scale with different platforms. We'll also have aeronautical uses for L and S band, but what I was referring to before, and with Equitus, that'll be the L and S band, frequencies in F2 and F3 or KA band.

Got it.

Great.

Thank you. your next question comes from the line of sebastiano petty with jp morgan please go ahead hi thanks for taking the question i guess just following up on brent's question about the strategic review i mean mark i mean what is the landscape shifted that would dictate that we're closing in on two years of village you know the strategic review and it seems as though i mean is it a is it yeah the target is it a moving target um i understand the complexities associated with the strategic review, but you perhaps could opine on whether and whether or not there are additional complexities that have evolved over time, including the potential to monetize a portion of the spectrum via sale or via lease that has perhaps created this elongated strategic review timeline. Because I think given commentary about the synergies and the merits of keeping the businesses together, it seems as though, you know, the feedback seems as though that it seems decreasing in likelihood that we will get a separation. And that just seems to be the public messaging. And so I just want to see if we are closing, you know, one door in terms of the strategic review in terms of a separation and is spectrum more front and center. And within that strategic review, just trying to understand the different moving pieces and how we should kind of think about that. And whether or not, again, whether or not equities also kind of plays into that as well. Because I think last quarter we talked about maybe going down a dual path. Is that still something that you would consider at this point?

Okay. Yeah. The purpose of the strategic review has been and remains to be uh you know uh delivering value to shareholders right that that's the purpose of it the the issue is that we're in a very dynamic uh business environment environment uh that that's what you know the question is do we come up with a strategy that is uh pertinent or relevant to what the competitive situation is and the value of our resources and assets. And so the first thing that we had to deal with were some internal issues associated with potential separation. And that includes the two big ones that we had highlighted at the time was one, bringing flights two and three into service, making sure that the satellites deployed directly and that we could bring them into service. We're, you know, at the tail end of those, I think we're going to retire those risks. There were also some risks associated with the separate debt silos from the Inmarsat and Biosat, you know, from the Inmarsat acquisition. I think those things are becoming more clear as well. But the biggest, you know, the biggest factor and one of the ones that we've also highlighted is the competitive posture of the combined company relative to the separate companies. And clearly, you know, the multiples associated with the defense business are really attractive with the standalone business. That is one of the things that we've been that's prompted that review. But the other thing is the thing behind that is that you want a defense business that's going to grow rapidly. And so we, the very first thing we're trying to preserve is make sure that our defense business grows rapidly, which we believe it is. And we also, you know, what we believe as well, and some of that will become more evident over the next couple of quarters as we win or lose specific contracts for, you know, and learn what the reasoning is behind that on customer decisions. But right now, our prospects, so we're really optimistic about our prospects, and those prospects do involve dual-use applications. And that is, you know, if you look on a competitive basis in the space segment, dual-use does seem to be a really important theme, both in the U.S. and globally. And that's because of reasons that we've talked about before, which is the cost of putting assets in space and the potential for monetizing those assets in the commercial market when they're not used for defense applications. And then the other thing that's becoming really, really clear, you can certainly see that from what's going on in the Middle East as well, is that more and more commercial infrastructure is targeted. So there certainly will be benefits from having the same or related types of resilience techniques for commercial use, things like navigation, positioning, timing, communications, access to situational awareness. All those things are becoming more important for commercial assets as well. So I'd say while we're on a good run in the DAT business, we're probably going to make sure that we understand that because we don't want to prematurely separate the businesses. That's probably the single biggest factor on the DAT side. On the spectrum side, what we're also seeing is a rapidly evolving environment where the competitive dynamics, especially in the D2D space, are really in turmoil because of the issue about whether, let's say, non-terrestrial networks are intended to augment terrestrial networks or compete with terrestrial networks. That has a really big impact on the competitive environment and the choices of some non-terrestrial network operators will create opportunities for others. So we're definitely seeing the effects of that. So again, what we're real near-term focused is to increase the value of our spectrum by being able to address some of these larger markets to validate not just what the transactional value of the spectrum is, but what the value of it would be when brought into use, whether it's by us or others, and make sure that we can put our spectrum to the highest purposes. And I think that equities is going to help us frame that. So that's what we're going to continue to do. I think we're not going to make a premature decision on either spectrum or DAP separation while the competitive environment is so dynamic.

Your next question comes from the line of Justin Lang with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Hi, thanks for taking the question. Mark, you called out AI-driven autonomy across domains as presenting a growth catalyst for you. I'm hoping you maybe could sort of expand on that a little bit.

Is that sort of a nod to drones, or is that getting at something else any color there around opportunity sizing and time frame would be great as well thanks yeah well so just in terms of the aeronautical safety requirement drones are certainly a really big potential growth area and and for drones you know one of the things to look at is there There was a notice of proposed rulemaking from the Department of Transportation about how the U.S. would handle autonomous air vehicles, and it requires some backup. Assuming that the primary—the simplest thing to think of is think about what's happened with autonomous ground vehicles. They get confused sometimes. They have the option of pulling over to the side of the road. You don't have that option. with an air vehicle. So it's really, really important that air vehicles have continuous and uninterrupted transmission for command and control or telemetry. So that is one of the things that's addressed in that. That will be a special purpose application. It's very directly related to some of our existing, to some of our existing missions in air traffic safety. Even with commercial air traffic, there's lots of interest in, for instance, autonomous co-pilots, single-pilot vehicles, where you can see that there's some overlap between or a continuum between the completely unmanned ones and the manned aerial vehicles. So, that's a really good target area for us. For unmanned land vehicles, there's another aspect of it, which is that besides just the command and control part of it, it opens up a lot more applications for passenger use of those vehicles, a lot of which likely would be through 5G terrestrial networks, but would certainly be augmented by non-terrestrial networks. So, those are two examples. The other really big example is the use of autonomous drones, land, sea, and air in government applications. So that's clearly a rapidly growing area as well. So those are some of the ones that we're keeping current in, in terms of working with potential customers, making sure our technology is appropriate for those.

Got it. That's a great color. And then maybe just one on the PTSG when, you know, it looks like the contract has a $4 billion ceiling value. And, Gary, maybe you could help us understand what you've booked so far and how the task orders work here, just trying to get a sense of how the program might ramp and over what time frame, and if there are any major deltas between sort of revenue recognition and cash receipts to be aware of here. We'd be grateful for any color there. Thanks.

Okay, so we've booked what we've, you know, what we've been awarded thus far. There's two components to it. There's a base order and there are some options. What's in the backlog is the order that we received, does not include the options. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I entirely followed the remainder of that question. Maybe you could repeat it for me, was it about revenue recognition? Well, just over what timeframe that ceiling might be exercised and how to think about potential task orders being cut from here more of an operational question yeah i mean we're going to wreck it we will recognize revenue and we'll have earnings uh in that program based on how we're spending uh against you know the um you know the long-term program value we'll book it as percent complete accounting the way we do with the remainder of our contracts that are like this yeah you know different companies treat these delivery order contracts differently what we do do is we only put it in backlog or counted as an order when we have a firm delivery order against the delivery order contract.

Some contractors, some people will just announce the value of that, consider that backlog. What we do is we have a separate, we'll separately describe the total value of a delivery order contract that we can work against, but that's That's not the same as backlog for us. In this particular case, I think the next increases in delivery orders against the contract would be either for more copies of the same satellite, which is, that's one possibility. The other one would be for subsequent generations of the satellite, which we also expect that the government will go probably to some extent in both of those directions.

Got it.

Your next question comes from the line of Edison Yu with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks for squeezing me in here. So firstly, I have a bit of a maybe shallow question. So apologies. If I look at the last quarter shareholder letter, I think Equitas was mentioned 10 times. And if you look at the shareholder letter today, I don't think it was mentioned once. So, are we just reading too much into that? Is there some type of maybe relative change in just your stance or in the timing of Equitas as it pertains to a quarter ago?

Short answer is no. I think that's what we're holding out for is to have the next announcement, which really would be about the equities purchase of its initial satellite conservation. So once we can announce that, that's when we'll do it, and we just decided just to wait for that.

Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. And then just follow up. I know Spectrum's been asked about several times, but maybe if we kind of refer to the I don't know if you've looked at the Amazon Global Star proxy, but it seems there are at least four bidders out there for MSS Spectrum. And I'm curious, kind of, I mean, in your discussions and kind of what's been going on behind the scenes, does that sound like what the market looks like to you? You know, kind of like four bidders out there that are really interested in any way you can comment on that?

Well, I think that, I mean, that was a transaction where we'd get more insight into it. And yes, there were four bidders. I think that the number of bidders is going to depend both on, just like on other spectrum, you know, if you think of a potential spectrum transaction, it's going to be both the unit value or you know you think of it as as a price per megahertz pop per per market area that that's one value you know one way that you'll see what the amount of interest is the other one's going to be on the volume of that the size of that transaction the amount of spectrum that's available so that was one that was one uh one data point i think you know more recently there's probably going to be some disclosure around an Iridium data point, and we're paying, yes, we're paying attention to all that. And then as a, just on the other side, again, we think that the transactional value should be, should, should grow with the development value, right? So what we're trying to make sure we understand is what is the development value of the spectrum and what's the transaction value, and then we can, you know, we can decide strategically what makes the most sense for us.

Thank you.

Okay, and your next question comes from the line of Ryan Knuths with Needham & Company. Please go ahead.

Great, thanks. First one on Maritime. It seems like it's maybe not keeping up with some of your expectations, some of the installs and such. Can maybe expand on how you see that market developing here in the short to medium term and things you're doing to counteract that?

Yeah, I mean, there are several values and several variables at play in the maritime market. One is, you know, the rate at which we can do installations. Some of that where we have customers that have made commitments for portions of their fleet, you know getting getting those portions installed are kind of gates to getting additional orders but also the market is somewhat think of it as the distribution channel to market is a little bit fragmented as well and so I think we're doing really well we're with our direct relationship some of the indirect relationships are going to require more work because of some of the incentives that have existed in the past for some of the recent some of the resellers and aggregators of satellite capacity I think as demand is going up that the more and more the I think that those aggregators will turn to arrangements with the few satellite operators that really have the ability to serve the most congested and densest markets. So I think we've got a couple of things that we're working through. I think the biggest thing is so far, and we're closing in on a couple thousand vessels connected, I think customer satisfaction is good. The ability to deliver that's essentially the same as a Leo-only solution is pretty clear. So that's the thing that we're most focused on is the value proposition to the end users. I think that part is going well. The rest, I think we do have some logistics stuff. I don't mean to minimize that. I think we're making progress on that. And I think we're also working on the distribution. Those will be the factors that will drive longer-term penetration.

Really helpful, Mark. Maybe if you could just expand on your role in the space systems business. Obviously, it's a very hot segment, and you guys have talked about growth this year. What do you see as some of the drivers there of your space systems business?

Yeah, so in DAT, we have a part called Mission Systems, and what we're seeing are opportunities all across the board. I mean, there are, think of it as short-term issues with existing government space assets that are expiring and they're looking for commercial versions. That's some combination of defense, civil, special mission stuff, we're seeing opportunities there. We're also seeing the government wanting to consolidate the ways that they manage control systems, refreshes on the ground system, refreshes on the terminals. The other really big thing that's become an issue is, you know, think of it as what we make, like, tactical radios for fighter jets or ground vehicles, and often you'll find integration is a really big issue. You know, getting a system distributed within the platform that it's serving, so that's creating opportunities for us as well. And then there's some new, you know, just really new areas around space-to-space links. We're doing well in that. Optical, space-to-space, space-to-ground, those are opportunities. It's just a real, I mean, that is space in general is a really booming area for us. And I think that's what you're going to see when it comes to award opportunities for us in the next year. That's great.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about that.

And with no further questions in queue, I will now hand the call back over to Mark for closing remarks.

Okay, so thanks, everybody, for joining our call. I know that it is a really dynamic environment out there. We're excited about that. I think kind of the numbers that are most attractive to us, most exciting for us, are both kind of the new order rate, especially in the DAT segment, which includes technology on both the government and commercial side. We think technology is going to be the leading indicator for awards growth. And we've got a really good pipeline. I think that will develop over just the next few quarters. We'll be able to talk about that. And the other point that we want to reinforce is that that technology is really the leading edge of what drives our services and recurring revenue business. So I think that that's going to, you know, that that's going to help us overcome some of the increased competition in some of our older parts of our business. But basically all the things where we're seeing growth are well within the kind of the target area that we've been working, you know, for probably decades. So thanks for joining us and look forward to speaking again next quarter.

Thank you again for joining us today. This does conclude today's conference call. You may now disconnect.