York Space Systems Inc. (YSS) September 2026 Conference Transcript

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Adam Samuelson, Senior Vice President on the Aerospace and Defense Equity Research Team here at Jefferies. Thank you again for everyone attending our annual Jefferies Industrials Conference here in New York. Today, we're lucky enough to have Dirk Wallinger, CEO of York Space, joining us. Just as quick a bio, Dirk is the founder, president, chief executive officer of York Space Systems. Since founding the company in 2012, he's led the company's growth from a new space entrant into a public aerospace and defense company with more than 55 satellites placed into orbit, three constellations in operation, and an active mission experience across proliferated low-Earth orbit space data network, tactical communications, custody, fire control, remote proximity operations, and classified national security programs. So with that, Dirk, thank you for being here. Maybe just to start for investors who are newer to the story, can you just give a quick overview of York space, what the company builds, and where you sit today with the broader national security space ecosystem.

Sure. Thanks, Adam. I appreciate it. Thank you to Jeffries as well for this conference and opportunity to give people a better picture of what we're doing. So as alluded to, I'm Dirk Wallinger, founder and CEO of York Space Systems. What we do is essentially we are a prime integrator of spacecraft systems. So we execute as a prime contractor building spacecraft systems typically for the united states government but also for commercial customers as well we execute the full ecosystem so we're building the satellite platforms we're integrating the payloads we're procuring the launch vehicles we're integrating the launch vehicles we're launching them putting them into orbit and then operating them in orbit we have three different mission operation centers both unclassified classified and top secret we have close to 50 ground stations throughout the world we own really all the key pieces needed in that vertical, so flight software, attitude control capabilities in software, ground software, mission operations capabilities as well, the core flight computers, and most of the key critical pieces that are needed to do really any kind of mission. One unique thing about us is we execute only under firm fixed price contracts and only as the prime. So we don't currently sell software to any customers. We don't sell pieces of what we do to any customers. We execute turnkey directly to the customer, either government or commercial. We've since expanded a little bit to adjacent markets where I alluded to we have 50 ground stations throughout the world. So things that connect to satellites, things that satellites need to control, we're starting to move and take back bigger markets in those areas as well. So we recently acquired a company called Allspace who makes the terminals on the ground, which is a key enabler to enable York to leverage the significant growth we're going to see on unmanned systems. Terminals on the ground, particularly Allspace terminals, do not get jammed as far as communications go and GPS. That's really a key to enabling the unmanned systems, whereas unmanned kind of capabilities today we're seeing are jammed in theater. And so that's a key differentiator where York fits. So a long way of saying we're the spacecraft integrator. We're a turnkey solution to our customers. We execute firm fixed price contracts as the prime.

That's very helpful. So maybe I'd just love to just dig into this up front. I mean, like stocks had a meaningful move in the last few months. And I think investors are still trying to recalibrate kind of the story after the first few quarters as a public company. Can you just help bridge us what was assumed at the time of the IPO? What's changed since then around kind of the core satellite capabilities and the way that your government customer is contracting for those capabilities?

Yeah, sure. So, you know, since IPO, York's capabilities and what we deliver to the customer base remains exactly the same. We're a prime provider. We beat competitors for the exact same capability, not similar capability, literally the exact same capability at half the cost, and we deliver before them. So on some of our contracts where we're head-to-head with other competitors like, say, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, they're the exact same contract. We've delivered two full Falcon 9s stuffed with York spacecraft platforms to orbit on those contracts. Meanwhile, our two closest competitors combined have delivered half of that capability to date. So we're delivering before them. So all of that hasn't changed. I think one of the areas where there's been a little bit of divergence on how the stock's performing and people's perception of where York fits is that the government really moved to a completely different acquisition kind of process earlier part of this year. so they have moved to more IDIQs and they also restructured acquisition authorities to be under what are called PAEs. So what they've done is they've appointed a PAE for each kind of core mission set. So that might be communications. Things like communications would be acquired by some of it would be space systems command for geosystems. Some of it would be a classified customer for what used to be called Milnet and some of it would be space data agency acquiring the transport system. Those are all communication capabilities and what the government realized was it's pretty inefficient to be acquiring what are communication systems for the government under three different acquisition authorities. So we're going to combine those and they're going to be called PAOs and they're going to acquire communication systems for all the branches. That was a pretty major restructuring and what that meant was that a lot of the acquisitions that were moving along pretty quickly under rapid RFPs got moved to an IDIQ process. And the main difference here between these acquisitions is if you want to move and award contracts pretty quickly on a one-year time frame, RFPs are a good way to do that. You can move them pretty quickly on one to two-year time frames, but you have to continuously repeat that competition cycle. And what it means is it's harder to do larger amounts of money over, say, three or four And so what they did was they shifted to the PAA structure and IDIQs because what happens is IDIQs, they will run the competition process once, they'll meet the requirements of the FAR, and then once they have selected their winners, they actually never have to do that repeat that competition. So if you're looking to unload, quite frankly, a very large amount of dollars over a three year timeframe, an IDIQ is a very efficient way to do that. You run the competition once, and then you can just order task orders without needing to repeat that structure. So that was really the major shift. Now, look, unfortunate for us that that acquisition strategy meant a delay in getting those IDIQs in place by probably about six months, which meant that some of our revenues kind of moved to the right on a line on a calendar. But looking at it from an 18 to 24 month period of time, there's no difference in where York fits in the ecosystem and our ability to win, except that now our addressable market is significantly larger. whereas contracts that we were competing on before were half-billion-dollar-type opportunities. Now one of the opportunities is a $4 billion opportunity for that one IDIQ win. So a long way of saying that York has not changed significantly in what we're doing, where we fit, or our ability to win. We've actually won 88% of the contracts that we have bid on, which is an amazing capability to win. It's just the government shifted their strategy, and so now revenues are expected to fall in the 27 timeframe instead of the latter 26 timeframe. So that's the main kind of divergence of what happened between IPO and now with regard to how the government was acquiring things and where we expected dollars to hit.

Got it. So maybe just to put a bow on that, kind of where the guidance for fiscal 26 was lowered last month with earnings, kind of about $170, $580 million at the midpoint. How much of that is just the timing of new awards and the conversion of kind of existing backlog or the absence of new awards versus supply chain timing. And there's also some acquisitions that rolled in there. But just help us think about kind of how much of it was timing related tied to that procurement change versus are things that are a little bit more under your control.

Yeah, the vast majority of it is going to be pretty much directly tied to the acquisition process and the change from RFPs to IDIQs. But all that said, looking at 27, you know, When I get asked the question of what does York need to do and how do they need to position themselves to succeed in 27 to gain a lot of those revenues that we've been talking about that are significantly larger now, when you look down that scope of how does York need to be positioned, we are in an extremely strong position. And that's why we feel very confident about the 27 projections that, you know, we'll talk about later this year. The reason is because what you want to do is if you're a provider to the United States government where that's 70 percent of your backlog, what you do is our team goes and looks at where are the budgets? Not only where are the budgets, what are the highest priorities? We need to be winners in the highest priorities where the most dollars are. Now, in this instance, if you're looking at the 27 budget, you know, Department of War budget for space, the two highest priorities, it is clear, are AMTI and Space Data Network. You're going to have missile tracking, missile warning in there is probably the third priority, but those are your three largest priorities. And so what I need to be doing and what my team needs to be doing is ensuring we are best positioned to win for the biggest dollars and the highest priorities. So what does that mean for York in 26 positioning for rapid growth in 27 is, I have to be on those contracts. So you've heard, and hopefully you've heard, in the first earnings call and the second, we've won numerous, we've won eight contracts in 26 alone. Two of those are significant IDIQs with on-ramp opportunities. And 10 minutes before my earnings call, I found out they let me talk about the other IDIQ that we won, which was Space Data Network, which we are on now. And we have already won two task orders for that. And so if you're looking at, we'll just pick that one. If you're looking at budget for just Space Data Network, which is only one of multiple opportunities for us, there was a $2 billion award to SpaceX, but it's a $4 billion budget for that, meaning there's $2 billion there of opportunity for York in 27, whereas before, under the previous acquisition cycle, it was half a billion. So my dollars up that I can win has quadrupled in that amount of time. It did cost me a delay, but it quadrupled. And it's going to be a similar story on AMTI and Missile Warning, Missile Track, other opportunities that we're doing. So, you know, look, I'm not going to sit here and say, ah, it's all the same. It just got pushed to January of 27. But the dollars got significantly bigger. We've proven that we can win, and we're on all the major priorities for the government right now. Couple that on top of we had a big commercial win earlier in the year as well. So we're winning on commercial as well. So from a positioning standpoint, you know, the reality is the market's going to react to earnings and some adjustment in the guidance that something crossed over December 31st, 2026. But if you're looking at it from an 18 to 24 kind of standpoint, there's virtually going to be no change except for our addressable market got significantly larger.

So as we think about that change and that opportunity set, especially on the Space Data Network and how big that could be, help us, and I know you're not going to give guidance and talk about 2027 specifically at this point, but help us think about the high level kind of what's in backlog, that from what's in the backlog today that will carry into next year, the opportunity set on award timings or IDIQs that you would expect to occur in especially the first half of the year that could result in revenues over the course of 27. Just help us think about kind of how you would frame that high-level opportunity set to build to translate to revenue.

Yeah, so at the high level, I'll be kind of more general, our revenue typically is recognized over the course of 24 to 30 months. Our last contract was a $600 million win. That revenue will pretty much be recognized linearly between kickoff to 24 to 30 months out. That's generally how our construct of revenue recognition works for us. Look, end of 26 and end of 27, there's going to be a significant portion of that, which is backlog. Contracts that we've won, we're going to execute. As we incur those costs, we're going to recognize the revenue. Beginning second quarter and then on into 27, we'll need to be more reliant on some of our wins in early 27 in order to build that backlog and keep that revenue recognition up. We do benefit from the fact that we have a wide variety of contracts and a wide variety of mission capabilities. So we're kind of less dependent on the one-off contracts. So, I mean, there's a lot of focus on Space Data Network just because it's the one win that's public that there's a budget out there for. But we have won across numerous programs. So whether that's weather, whether that's remote proximity operation, whether that's missile warning, missile track, whether that's synthetic aperture radar, we have that capability to win across all of those mission sets. And so Q1, Q2, Q3 of 27 will be critical in ensuring that we're going to end up hitting our 27 guidance. And so as we kind of burn through a little bit more of 26, that will start to inform better the opportunities that we have to win in 27. But I can say that our identified pipeline right now is $11.5 billion. Those are specific identified opportunities that we are tracking right now. And so the anticipated awards for those, we put a timeline in our last earning deck so you can kind of get a sense of when awards are on identified pipeline for York. So hopefully that gives the market a little bit of insight in what's going on there.

And those awards, are they dependent on a fiscal 27 budget or are some of those fiscal 26 funds yet to be appropriated?

Most of them are going to be 26. So if you're talking about something like AMTI, which is like an $8 billion budget, those are $26. So those will get awarded in 27. Space Development Network, same thing. There's $4 billion there on the 26 budget, which means those are 27 awards. So it wouldn't be until the end of 27 at best when you're going to start depending on the 27 budget. So that's why we're probably not going to be as impacted by a little bit of delays in the government because most of the things that we're tracking in an identified pipeline are $26.

Got it. And as we think about the win rate on the things that you have, you have when you alluded to an 88% win rate kind of earlier and talked about it on the earnings call, kind of how do we, how should investors think about the, watch those to assess the way those wins are converting into funded production kind of and revenue work? I just think how do we, I mean, the 88, it's hard to sometimes the numbers out there but it's hard to really make sense because some of this is so classified kind of what does that what does that really mean and what what what is the 12 percent that you didn't win kind of is there a value opportunity that isn't being kind of that is being not captured that 88 percent or 12 percent yeah so look i understand it's difficult for the market uh because more and more you know space data network you know used to be something called milnet kind of and got combined in space network but the other half was transport which was all unclassified.

And so the market was used to getting a lot of insight into kind of where things are landed and who's winning and who's not. And so they moved everything to be classified, which makes it difficult for the market. And obviously I understand. But I will say there's a recognition by the government. Quite frankly, they're getting a little beat up by Congress. There needs to be more competition. And so they are trying very hard to be more transparent about what they're awarding and to whom so that there's some accountability to Congress because Congress has expressed frustration with the concentration that they've been in awards. So I'm in hopes that they continue to try and be as transparent as they can. I mean, when I talked to the Pentagon, when I talked to Congress, I asked that it would help with the market to understand a little bit better. And they have gotten better. So the Space Data Network, we had won that IDIQ six or seven months ago and couldn't say anything about it. And then our last earnings call, they did say something publicly, which allowed us to. I'm in hopes that that continues. So the reality is, is tracking the budget is probably the best way to understand where the dollars will fall. Contractors are going to be restricted by what they can say to what the government can, but it is heading a better trend of allowing people to talk more about it. On the commercial side of things, we're hoping to be more transparent. Our customer has agreed as well that they want to be more transparent. So on the commercial wins, we're going to talk more about those as well. Should be some announcements kind of coming up tomorrow as well. So we are trying to be transparent. The government is trying as well, but it's hard.

And as you think about it, that's helpful, that balance of commercial versus government and military. How do we think about that mix of business going forward? I mean, we'd still think that it's still going to be a majority and more heavily weighted towards that defense government customer. But how do we think about that balance, especially on that core satellite business?

Yeah. So we're about 30% of backlog is commercial now, which is a little bit of a change from IPO. I think it was probably 15%, something like that. So we've doubled our share of commercial business going forward. I think that trend will continue. Frankly, during the IPO, we didn't talk much about our commercial potential just because at that time we were talking to the market and asking them, judge us on what you've seen. There's no hyperbole here. We're not asking you to take any big leaps of faith. Just judge us based on what you've seen. But now we've won on commercial. We're in a very good position on several new commercial contracts as well. And so I think the commercial as far as backlog is going to grow. I'd like to see it at maybe 40, 45 percent in the next 12 to 18 months. But we'll have to see. It is hard because the government is such a large customer and they issue very large contracts. So, you know, if I can win the government contracts that I think we can and will win, and I got commercial to 35%, 40% means I did an extremely good job because I increased that ratio under what is hopefully a very quickly growing government side of things as well. So commercial will continue to grow. We're very well positioned to execute on that. And I think what's helping us win the commercial contracts is we're a really proven provider. Commercial customers, look, they can rely on relationships for LOIs, MOUs. things like that but when it comes to actually generating revenue you need to have a provider who you know is going to be able to put it up and have it work uh and so that's a real strategic advantage for us versus some of our kind of near peers okay that's helpful um maybe switching gears a little bit i mean you mentioned this very briefly at the outset you tell me did an acquisition notable acquisition kind of closed in kind of mid-year all space um not satellite business.

It's terminals and communication, grand infrastructure for a variety of different applications. But can you maybe walk us through why that acquisition, why now, what that does for the offering of the portfolio?

Absolutely. This one will be a bit longer, so I'll need you to bear with me a little bit. So we'll step outside of satellites for just a second. So what does York think the future of national defense is and what's going to happen in the future? The short answer is unmanned systems. Unmanned systems have changed fundamentally how everyone, especially very capable countries right now, how they need to look at what the future is because it is unmanned systems. I view unmanned systems changing to the national defense architecture the same way that World War I was. When cavalries met machine guns, trenches, and barbed wire, it fundamentally changed how everyone thought about how they need to execute. I think that's what unmanned systems are. I think a lot of focus now is how do I strap unmanned systems to my existing architecture? That's the same as talking about how you're going to put machine guns on cavalry. It's not going to work. You have to fundamentally rethink how you're doing things. So if that is the case, when York looks at it and says, well, what does it take to win them. If you are going to actually deploy unmanned systems at hundreds and thousands type of scale, joy sticking it with goggles is not going to work. It's definitely not going to work against China. So what do you actually need? In the past during Iran and Iraq, you needed air power, air superiority, which we had. So that was our bent pipe solution to communications in Iran and Iraq. Will that win in Iran? It's not working today. Will that work in China? Definitely not. So how do you communicate? You need a sophisticated, assured communications backbone in space. That is how you're going to be able to communicate and coordinate hundreds of thousands of drones. Not only do you have to have the space architecture, you have to have ways to get it down. You need ground stations throughout the world, out of theater, that aren't going to get bombed, that can bring the data down. You need mission operation centers. You need people who can execute these unmanned drones at scale who are not sitting right next to where the missiles are landing. They need to be sitting in the U.S. or somewhere else. So you need mission operation centers. All this is very complicated. Now you're coordinating constellations and constellations of satellites, and now you're trying to coordinate constellations and constellations of drones. So you need very sophisticated software, and you need someone who's very sophisticated knowing how to execute constellations capabilities. And so when you put all that together and you align, what does York need to do to be a player in this? You need ground stations. We have Atlas, close to 50 ground stations throughout the world. You need sophisticated software. We are tasking five different missions and three constellations today. You need operations centers. We have unclassified, classified, and top secret classified operations centers today. And what is the last piece that you need? That signal needs to get down to the unmanned systems in an environment that is completely jammed. That is Allspace. Allspace is one of the online companies around who ever shown that they can get communications and GPS down in a common GPS denied environment. And by putting that platform on unmanned systems, you can proliferate the capability and actually execute that vision. Not with joysticks, not with fiber optic wires, through the actual way that it needs to happen to defeat a sophisticated adversary. So very long way of saying that's why Allspace mattered it was the last piece of being able to have common gps in a denied environment that is what's required to win the battles of the future and plugging that into a space architecture ecosystem is the only way to execute that at scale so there's a lot there to unpack so um maybe kind of how it's not i mean it's still fairly small today the opportunity as you describe it. On-man markets?

Yeah, and the ground terminals for those kind of communities are still, and all space, revenue-wise, just was not that big at the time of acquisition. Clearly, you have big aspirations for the market opportunity. How big do you think that market can be over the course of three to five years or whatever timeline you think is appropriate and what has to happen to get there in terms of what the military is buying?

Yeah. So look, very important piece of what we're doing is explaining the architecture that we already have and what we're bringing and that we can actually execute the types of things that I said. We're talking about you can execute that in eight months kind of thing, that kind of capability of showing operations, a multitude of unmanned systems in theater, in a jammed environment. We can show that. No one's shown that to date and we think we're in a very good position to do it. As far as why do you think that that can happen sooner rather than later and what's the opportunity, I think you can just look at the budgets. So if you look at the 26th budget for DOG, which was D-A-W-G, Defense Autonomous Warfare Group, their budget in 26 was $250 million. In 27, the president's budget request is $55 billion. That is a gross of 2,400% in a single year. So it's not just York who has the understanding that unmanned systems are indeed the future and will be required, you're starting to see it in the budget. So I think it will happen far more quickly than people realize at a scale that hasn't been seen before. I think Ukraine and Iran really showed that unmanned systems can absolutely cripple sophisticated adversaries who are very dependent on large infrastructure, which let's look around at some of the countries who have large infrastructure who can easily be tackled by very affordable drones if put out at scale the u.s is recognizing that and i think it's genuine concern and that's why you're seeing that that kind of investment at that scale so i think it's going to happen very quickly like to my world war one analogy when the cavalry charged the machine guns everyone knew yeah it's definitely the machine guns from now on it was clear right we're gonna have the same kind of thing and i guess the the but i guess the point where i was kind of thinking about it is

we have you're not architecting kind of the drones today to be to communicate in that way So do the existing – do the drones that are in development or being fielded today need to be then re-architected to actually – there's one bug flying between the bus right now.

It really likes me.

Do those need to be re-architected before this becomes a viable solution or how does this work with what's in the field or fielding rapidly today?

So the drones themselves, so if you're talking about a quadcopter or something like that, I would agree with you. But there's different solutions for that. You can have local area networks that are less susceptible to jamming, et cetera. What you need actually is a terminal on the ground that can work as your central node, which we're seeing that today. So Allspace had a PR where they announced that they had sold a lot of units for DIU and another customer. And so those units are starting to not say anything about specific contracts, but those terminals are being used on unmanned systems today. So things like GARC, you know, that's a program the Navy's working for unmanned sea vessels. Those terminals work on that. They work on terrestrial vehicles as well. So they work on smaller tanks. They work on a smaller unmanned gun kind of system. So the technology actually exists today. What we need to do is provide that connectivity through space in jammed environments, which we're working to do. So those terminals have already shown that they can communicate in theater. So they did it on tanks and a defender, hummers, and then ships as well. So they've shown that they can operate in denied environments already. So the last leg is to work the drone piece, which, like I said, those can be solved in different ways. You don't necessarily have to talk to the quadcopters. You can basically task them through a more secure local area network. So the capabilities actually exist today. I don't think that we need a swap repackaging or anything like that to be able to start to demonstrate that capability right now. Okay.

And I still have more questions But I want to make sure I give time If anyone in the audience has any questions We do have a mic that we can pass around In the front here You got her unprepared She wasn't ready to Ready to make the sprints David On the first discussion we had About the change In reward process You characterized it as An increase in the market opportunity but it sounded more like unless you're the odds of your total award increasing uh because you only have one competition instead of three it's basically the same market opportunity but a potential earlier and larger backlog from the award um if you were gonna win the rfp and then win it again and win it again it's it's really the same amount of dollars just better a little bit of visibility if you won win one big ideiq at the beginning so can you just clarify am i seeing that the wrong way or is there something else here uh yeah so i might word it a little bit differently so before we're in a perpetual

cycle of rfps for sure and it was open to everyone uh and so yes we believed in our ability to continue to win but there's always new competitors entering that market that we'd have to compete with uh and so that's kind of the dynamic there was before but the tam was smaller so the budget for transport all of transport before was half a billion space data network now it's four billion so it is larger like so that's like just quantitatively true it's four times larger than it was before. But here's the thing. This is what a lot of people sometimes do miss with the IDIQs is they run the competitive process once and then they can issue task orders on that. So it's not perpetually open to new competitors. What people don't get is if the government is saying AMTI is my first priority, SDN is my second, and tracking missile track is my third, and they ran those IDIQs and they awarded them, it doesn't mean that this new competitor who comes of left field has a lower chance of winning, they don't have a chance of winning, period. They're not on it, and they won't be on it. And so that's the difference, is securing those IDIQs meant that you have an opportunity for those dollars in 26, 27, 28, 29. And the nice part about it is the other winners on those contracts are people we have competed against in the past very successfully. We have won at half the cost, same capability, and delivered before them. So I feel very good about now my, the TAM got, not the addressable market, got four times larger, and now my competitors are three or four, as opposed, they were infinite. And now I know who the competitors are, so now I know I'm going to position myself to So it's a much more larger dollars, smaller pool of people competing in that competition. So I think that, you know, I felt really good about RPWin before, but I feel very good about Does that help?

I see another hand.

Just a question about...

It doesn't matter. We can hear you. I'll repeat the question.

Just a question about all spaces to understand the technology behind it.

Is it sort of akin to Satellis where you're using a geoconstellation for time and location data that effectively is mimicking GPS satellite constellations? technologically work the same way or how can you guarantee that sure it works in a down gps environment yeah so the question was hey what about all space is there a technical differentiator between what they're doing and what other gave a sample company are doing with regards to gps uh so the short answer is it is technically different uh it is an electronically steered antenna uh but they have some technology with regard to how they steer that antenna that makes it very, I won't say unsusceptible, but much less susceptible to jamming because they can actually, it isn't just beam steering. There's some lens technology that makes it harder to see and harder to jam. So there's that. It's also very resilient because they have a two beam and a four beam configuration. So basically they can be talking to a geo satellite like you're talking to that like you're you you brought up but they can also be talking to my transport satellites and starlink and so if you jam one of them they just switch to another beam you can't jam four different beams all at once so the antenna itself is harder to jam it has multi beams which mean that it's harder to jam that way as well and no they're using a different solution for gps so they are calculating their own gps position on the ground i can't get in the technical aspects of how they're doing it but it isn't being propagated from something else it is actually calculating its own position and so that's what's also unique as well because it has multi-beams right you can talk to more than one thing and if you know where more than one those things are then you can you can infer where you're at uh so yeah it's fundamentally different technology well and that's the that's the beauty too is their their mobile systems and so it goes to the entire proliferated architecture of if you have more of them, it makes it, you know, you can maybe take a few, but you can't take them all. So it does no good to get rid of big, juicy satellites on the ground if you have big, juicy satellite systems on the ground as well. And so that's the difference with Allspace.

Okay. So we're almost out of time. So maybe just very quickly to close, just for investors who are kind of coming to the story new or reassessing the story after the first year as a public company, 12, 18 months from now, we're assessing kind of success kind of against the different acquisition model. How would you define kind of that success for investors?

Well, I mean, this is going to align with what investors want to hear. We need to win contracts. We need to show that addition to backlog. And I feel very confident that we're going to see that starting in the 27 kind of timeframe. And so backlog is obviously going to grow as well. I hope to also see significant growth in the adjacent markets. So all space capabilities being coupled with our space capabilities I think can help generally grow the unmanned market as well. So we're going to continue to capture our core markets, which you guys, everyone will see in backlog. But then we'd love to see additional growth in adjacent markets like our ground segment for Atlas and Allspace as well.

All right, great. Well, with that, I think we're going to have to close it up. Dirk, thank you so much for joining us.