York Space Systems Inc.(YSS)Q1 2026 法說會逐字稿

Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us, and welcome to York Space Systems' Q1 2026 earnings call. After today's prepared remarks, we will host a question and answer session. I will now hand the call over to Christopher Evenden. Please go ahead.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to York Space Systems' Q1 2026 earnings call. With me on the line are Dirk Wallinger, our CEO, and Kevin Messerle, our CFO. Please note that our earnings press release is available at ir.yorkspacesystems.com. In addition, we have posted an earnings presentation to accompany our prepared remarks on the same website. Lastly, after the call, we will post a transcript of our prepared remarks and an audio replay of this call. For those listening to the rebroadcast of this call, we remind you that the remarks made herein are as of today, Thursday, 14th May 2026, and have not been updated subsequent to this call. During this call, we will refer to certain non-GAAP measures. A reconciliation of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures can be found in our earnings press release. We will also make statements that are considered forward-looking, including those related to our 2026 outlook, future revenue, growth prospects, backlog, growth of market share and addressable market, M&A strategy, inventory building, and the benefits of the acquisitions of Orbion and ALL.SPACE. Listeners are cautioned that our forward-looking statements involve certain assumptions and are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties that can cause our actual results to differ materially from our current expectations. We advise listeners to review the risk factors and other discussions included in our 2025 annual report on Form 10-K, the Q1 Form 10-Q, and our other filings with the SEC. After the completion of our prepared remarks, we will open the call for questions. Now, I'll turn the call over to Dirk.

Hello, welcome to York's Q1 2026 earnings call. I appreciate you taking the time to join us. Q1 marked a strong and focused start to the year, reflecting disciplined execution against our strategic priorities and the momentum established through our successful January IPO. We delivered revenue of $116 million, up 9% year-on-year, while also adding meaningful commercial and government awards in the quarter, strengthening our backlog and positioning us for continued growth. We also advanced key strategic initiatives, including the acquisition of Orbion to enhance vertical integration and production delivery times and early steps to build out our inventory in support of future demand. In February, we finalized a $187 million commercial contract for a 20-plus satellite constellation built on the M-CLASS platform with a clear pathway for additional orders as the customer continues to build out its constellation. We have since completed our kickoff with the customer and begun early design work. We expect significant revenue contribution from this program in 2027. In March, we shared that York won multiple IDIQ awards supporting next-generation national security space architectures. These awards reinforce the continued confidence government customers place in York's mature production line. The IDIQs will support the development and deployment of critical national defense and war-fighting space capabilities, including systems relevant to emerging highly integrated systems that contribute to missions like Golden Dome. We expect task order issuances on the awarded contracts in the near term and are well-positioned to compete, win, and execute on such orders. We also saw continued growth with our civil government customers, including NASA, where we secured an extension to the PEX contract through 2027. We are seeing strong new business activity across government, classified, and commercial markets; our business development team is fully engaged and at full capacity across this pipeline. Turning to capital allocation, the IPO has expanded our ability to invest in advancing our first-mover advantage. We have scaled our business development organization, adding capabilities across key markets, including Washington, D.C., Colorado, California, and Florida. In parallel, we are investing in inventory, initiating the build-out of the first 20 satellite platforms, allowing us to potentially reduce time to orbit by up to 75% to meet the rapid delivery demand signals from the market. The IPO also enabled us to accelerate our M&A strategy, which we are executing with the acquisition of Orbion Space Technology in Q1 and the signing of ALL.SPACE in April. As I highlighted in our last earnings call, Orbion strengthens our supply chain control and further integrates critical systems with flight-proven technology. We are seeing strong alignment and execution across the York and Orbion teams and are enthusiastic about the ability to contribute to accelerating our delivery timelines while operating successfully as a wholly-owned subsidiary. ALL.SPACE develops and manufactures next-generation, robust, jam-resistant, multi-band mobile tactical terminals for satellite communications. Their Hydra Terminal systems provide resilient network-agnostic communications on the move, enabling reliable connectivity across space, air, land, and maritime domains designed specifically to ensure connectivity is maintained in dynamic and contested environments. With this acquisition, York expects to advance its strategy to build and complete communication ecosystems operating in contested environments across the commercial and government networks. It will also further position us to expand into adjacent high-growth addressable markets, particularly the rapidly growing unmanned systems market, by leveraging our space-based network. Together, York and ALL.SPACE bring complementary proven capabilities to enable real-time access to critical information and improve awareness, coordination, and mission execution across distributed operations. ALL.SPACE brings an established and highly credible platform with a track record of execution across critical defense programs and a strong base of existing customers. Upon closing, the business will continue to operate as a wholly-owned subsidiary, maintaining its focus and agility while contributing to York's broader strategic objectives. ALL.SPACE has demonstrated success supporting the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy, including through the Next Generation Tactical Terminal and satellite terminal non-geostationary programs, reinforcing its position as a trusted provider of resilient communication solutions. These relationships not only validate the strength of the platform, but also expand York's opportunity to deepen engagement across key defense customers. We see significant opportunity to scale into the mobile manned and rapidly growing unmanned systems market through our combined space-based network and mobile ground terminals, where demand for resilient on-the-move connectivity is accelerating. As we have seen in current conflicts, assured connectivity in contested environments continues to present significant challenges. ALL.SPACE is a leader in providing multi-band assured communication in contested environments. This acquisition positions us well to capitalize on that opportunity, particularly as evolving geopolitical dynamics continue to drive increased reliance on unmanned and distributed systems in contested environments. The acquisition is expected to close in the third quarter, subject to regulatory approvals. Looking ahead, we will continue to pursue strategic acquisitions across two primary lanes: assuring supply chain and vertical integration, and leveraging our space domain expertise to continue to expand into rapidly growing adjacent markets, further growing our TAM. Let me close by reinforcing that York is well-positioned as we move into the second half of 2026. We are deliberately investing to build inventory and reduce delivery timelines by up to 75%, expanding portfolio capabilities like the ATLAS ground network, and continuing to expand our broad customer base. At the same time, we are leveraging our capital to execute a disciplined M&A strategy to strengthen our ability to deliver at speed, cost, and scale, while also expanding our total addressable market by leveraging our space expertise to expand in adjacent high-growth segments. Together, these efforts position York to capture significant opportunities emerging across an increasingly dynamic and contested global landscape. With that, I'll hand the call over to Kevin.

Thanks, Dirk. As Dirk discussed, 2026 is set to be a transformational year for us, with our January IPO opening several new avenues of growth. Revenue for the quarter was ahead of our expectations at $116.3 million, up $10.1 million or 9% on the prior year. The increase was primarily driven by growth in our major government programs, offset by a strong performance in Q1 last year as we accelerated production of our first 21 Tranche 1 Transport Layer communication satellites ahead of their launch last September. Gross margin, which includes allocated labor, overheads, and depreciation and amortization, was 19%, down 4 percentage points year on year, driven by the net impact of certain estimate at completion adjustments, which were a tailwind last year and a headwind this year, and a non-recurring depreciation expense this year. Gross margin dollars were $22.2 million in the quarter, down slightly from $24.6 million in the year-ago quarter, driven by the items I just mentioned, offset by higher revenues. Contribution margin grew 1 percentage point to 34% in Q1, driven by a richer mix of our newer vintage programs, which tend to have higher margins than our older vintage programs. Contribution margin dollars grew to $40.1 million from $35.3 million last year, driven by the aforementioned mix and higher overall revenues. Turning to operating expenses, SG&A plus R&D expenses increased 35% year-over-year. This was primarily driven by an increase in overall headcount at York, increases in overhead related to public company uplift, and incremental salaries and costs related to the acquisitions of ATLAS in August 2025 and Orbion in March 2026. As a result, adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was negative $3.6 million compared to $5.5 million last year. With regards to liquidity, as of 31 March 2026, our cash and cash equivalents were $655.7 million, and availability under our revolving facility was $150 million for total liquidity of $805.7 million. Loss per share was $1.51 per quarter. Approximately $1.07 of this is due to two substantial non-recurring non-cash charges associated with the IPO. Capital expenditures for Q1 2026 were $2.1 million as compared to $1.2 million in the year-ago quarter. Backlog has increased 18% to $642.3 million at quarter end from $542.6 million at 31 December 2025, driven by the commercial win we announced in March, partially offset by revenue recognized in the quarter. Looking ahead, we expect revenue for the year to be in the range of $545 million to $595 million, up 48% year-over-year at the midpoint. This is unchanged from our previous guidance. The recent changes at SDA have not reduced our nation's need for communications in contested environments. We continue to compete for that business based on the strengths we've shown in the past. With regards to Q2 in particular, I would note that we are experiencing delays in supply of certain components that will push a portion of revenue associated with those costs into the second half of the year. We believe these near-term headwinds are balanced by the unprecedented bid activity in other areas, netting out to an unchanged forecast for the full year. Now I'll hand it back over to the operator for questions. Operator?

Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. Please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star one again. We ask that you pick up your handset when asking a question, and if you're muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Peter Arment from Baird. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks. Good afternoon, Dirk, Kevin, Chris. Thanks for your time. Dirk, thanks for being in a position to clear things up and help investors try to understand a lot of the moving parts that have really been going on in the Space Development Agency. Since the justification books have come out and there's been a lot thrown out there, how do you view the positioning? If anything has changed for you, could you give us what you can at a high level on how you're viewing it? I know some of this is restricted and classified, but any high-level view would be appreciated. Thanks.

Sure. Good to hear from you, Peter. I appreciate the question. It presents a real opportunity for us to clarify a lot, because there's a little bit of confusion out there. On the last earnings call there were some questions about Transport Layer and how that might relate to the Space Data Network. At that time, I suggested that the Transport Layer capabilities—the ability to support the warfighter in theater and in domain—was an enduring need. Independent of what agency that need fell under, it would endure and continue. We're happy to see that's essentially what happened. The transport capability—assured communications provided directly to the warfighter—continues to exist and we're seeing it rolled into the Space Data Network. The government acknowledges there's confusion and they are doing a lot of work to clarify. Previously there was some assumption around MILNET and single-vendor outcomes, but what they are doing is bringing different capabilities together from military and commercial solutions under one architecture called the Space Data Network. If you look at the 2027 Department of Defense budget, you see a Space Data Network backbone at roughly $3 billion. You also see a line item indicating a Space Data Network backbone, 'multiple vendor procurement.' That's a separate line item, which means other vendors can compete for that backbone. That's encouraging to see a line item specifically for competition at about $800 million. Congress has been supportive of more competition and understands that's critical to a strong industrial base. If that continues, York believes there's opportunity for material expansion into the $685 million for Space Data Network mesh and ground architectures. With those two alone, you're looking at about $1.5 billion of opportunity. To put that in context, earlier budgets showed $200 million to $500 million for transport. In the new architecture under Space Data Network, that opportunity has more than tripled. That's very promising for us. Another point is some confusion about where York fits in the ecosystem and what our capabilities are. For obvious reasons there was a lot of focus on Transport because it was an unclassified program, but there are very large budgets elsewhere. Right now we are under contract for seven different mission sets that are not Space Data Network. We are executing advanced fire control, Moving Target Indicator, remote proximity operations, tracking data relay, advanced waveforms, weather, and IDS. Those capabilities span the ecosystem from classified programs to Golden Dome programs. York has strong capabilities in SDN; seeing that budget expand is phenomenal. On the classified side, we estimate the classified budget to be about $20.9 billion, with some overlap with Golden Dome's $17.5 billion. We're tracking dozens of specific opportunities across five different classified mission areas and estimate our total opportunity to be roughly $16.3 billion. We feel well positioned for the unclassified $8 billion allocated to Moving Target Indication. When you consider the classified and Golden Dome budgets, York looks like we have a targeted area of about $16 billion for work we can do. Those other mission sets matter because we are the incumbent on many of those capabilities.

That is really helpful and I think it'll be appreciated. Maybe just a quick follow-up. Kevin, you mentioned there's no change in this year's annual guidance, but you did say things are shifting around. Could you give a little color on what the supply chain issue is for Q2? Is it just a timing thing?

Yeah, Peter. Good question. We are reaffirming our prior guidance of $545 million to $595 million. A portion of the revenue we were planning to hit in Q2 will be delayed into Q3, and potentially some into Q4. It's a timing issue and doesn't change the overall trajectory for the year. It's related to a handful of suppliers; I don't want to publicly name them. They are working on some challenging items for us in certain instances, which has caused some development and production timing delays. We recognize revenue on a percentage-of-completion basis, so when purchase orders are delayed, revenue moves to the right in the year. Directionally, while we don't guide quarterly revenue, we anticipate Q2 2026 could be roughly flat year-over-year from Q2 2025. Again, it's a little softness there, but it's mostly timing.

Thanks, gentlemen. Very helpful color. I'll jump back in queue.

Your next question comes from the line of Austin Moeller from Canaccord Genuity. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon, Dirk and Kevin. First, could you provide a little more color on the national security IDIQs? I think you hinted that it's somewhat related to Golden Dome or potentially the Space Data Network solicitations in the J book. Any more detail would be appreciated.

Yeah, happy to. There was some confusion around IDIQs. There are a couple IDIQs related to Golden Dome on the unclassified side that had many awardees—tens or even more in one case—and people were conflating those with the IDIQs I mentioned. The two I referenced are for national security needs and are selective awards. I can't discuss the specific mission sets, but they were very selective and awarded to a small handful of companies with a track record of successful execution in orbit and the ability to produce at scale. Both IDIQs are for operational mission sets the government fields in large quantities. Being on those IDIQs is exciting because the government has been putting contract vehicles in place with vendors they believe can perform and execute. That process has taken a lot of work for the government and they've been working the past couple quarters to get these awards in place. I anticipate a large series of task orders coming out on both IDIQs over the next couple months. Our business development team has been very busy responding to task order requests. We've also signed off on doubling our classified space facility space. These IDIQs were selective and limited in awardees, not the hundreds that were on the unclassified IDIQs.

Okay. You already discussed this at length, but to reiterate, would you think that on future contracts or program solicitations for Space Data Network, MILNET, Transport Layer, it would be unusual for the Space Force to sole source to a single vendor, given the desire for competition and redundancy?

My perspective: I'm not speaking for the government. There are two dynamics. One is an immediate need for capability; given recent events, that's highlighted. If a supplier is producing successfully, they may continue to be used. There is strong congressional and military support for a strong industrial base and multiple suppliers. I wouldn't say they will never sole source anything. It's more likely they'll continue successful implementations while on-ramping other companies to produce at scale. The trend for 2026–2028 looks like: get suppliers producing from hundreds to thousands and invest in multiple suppliers. There will be some limited sole-source situations where a specific terminal or capability requires a particular supplier, but generally the push is toward competition and multiple suppliers.

You have ALL.SPACE terminals now, right?

Yes. We're excited about adding ALL.SPACE. We've signed a definitive agreement, subject to regulatory approvals. The ALL.SPACE terminal is a multi-beam electronically steered antenna—multi-band and capable of communicating with GEO, HEO, LEO, and MEO. It provides assured communications that are much harder to jam and are designed for tactical capabilities in theater. That robustness is important for unmanned systems, boats, ships, subs, and land vehicles where resilient connectivity in contested environments is critical. ALL.SPACE has proven production capabilities and a strong track record with U.S. defense customers. Coupling their terminals with our space capabilities provides assured connectivity that enables these systems to work in communication-denied environments.

Excellent. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Jon Godyn from Citigroup. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. This is Max on for John. Thanks for taking my question. I was wondering if you could double-click on the capital allocation strategy. You mentioned an M&A strategy of investing in growing adjacent markets. Is this part of diversifying away from SDN dependency, or part of the inorganic growth strategy as a whole? Any high-level color on these rapidly growing adjacent markets would be helpful. Thanks.

On capital allocation, we have two primary focuses. One is supply chain: there are areas where we are highly dependent on unfriendly sources and that must change. Solar cells are an example. Orbion strengthens our propulsion supply chain control. The second focus is leveraging our space expertise to expand into adjacent markets; it's not just about diversifying away from SDN. As I've said, we have multiple mission sets—SDN is one of eight. We build autonomous space systems and have autonomy, controls, and mission operations expertise that can be applied to adjacent markets. By coupling with ALL.SPACE, we can address the growing unmanned systems market—boats, subs, ships, land vehicles—offering turnkey assured connectivity and autonomy solutions. That market requires not just manufacturing but solutions that make these systems work, connect, and coordinate. That's where York can expand because that's what we already do for satellite constellations.

I'll add a quick note: in the earnings deck posted on the website, slides eight, nine, and ten illustrate the ALL.SPACE ecosystem and how it fits with what Dirk described. I would encourage folks to review those slides.

Your next question comes from the line of Seth Seifman from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much, and good afternoon. I wanted to ask about the EACs in the quarter and what drove the cost growth that led to those, and whether that's associated with the schedule delays you're expecting and whether those delays bring any profitability risk with them.

Hey, Seth. Good to hear from you. The first quarter EAC change was negative, but there's a good story behind it. We have an important government customer and mission where there had been some uncertainty on particular technical capabilities. In Q1, our technical teams and the government's technical teams agreed on what the technical capability should look like. That decision increases some material and labor cost on our side. We chose to absorb that cost and not pursue a contract modification so the mission could proceed. That EAC change accounts for about one point of the four-point year-over-year margin decline and is a one-time event. There could be upside if we accomplish it below our estimate. We wanted a reasonably conservative estimate to ensure the mission gets to the finish line. Another contributor to the gross margin decline was a non-recurring accelerated depreciation charge, about two points, related to a hosted payload satellite asset in orbit. We do not expect that to recur. Absent those two non-recurring items, our gross margin would have been slightly up year-over-year and up sequentially from Q4. The EAC change is a positive story in the sense that it was about delivering an important mission.

Okay. One clarification: the revenue guide for the year, the unchanged outlook, is that an organic outlook with no contribution from ALL.SPACE or other acquisitions?

That's correct. We will not adjust guidance for ALL.SPACE until the deal closes.

Okay. Excellent. Thanks very much.

Your next question comes from the line of Sheila Kahyaoglu from Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. This is Kyle on for Sheila. Thanks for taking my question. As it relates to the full year revenue guide, I'd appreciate a little color on what is already in backlog today to get there. You called out some timing issues, but what is still the go-get needed to hit the full-year guide?

Sure. For our range of $545 million to $595 million, the midpoint is $570 million and, as we mentioned on the last call in March, about 70% of that is backlog. That hasn't changed. That implies roughly 30% of the midpoint is new business. We also signed the $187 million commercial contract in Q1; most of that revenue will be in 2027, but it does contribute a little this year. We were not anticipating large-scale government contract awards in Q1 or Q2; we expect many of those events in the second half. Based on robust activity with our business development and proposal teams, we feel good about that new-business go-get.

To add: the government has been working to put contract vehicles in place—IDIQs and OTAs—so that after award they can issue task orders and get dollars to flow quickly. That shortens the procurement lifecycle because the government awarded contracts ahead of task orders. They're also issuing RFIs that can be awardable. This has the effect of accelerating task orders and dollars issued. Program schedules themselves are getting shorter; historically schedules might be three years plus, and now many are around two years. For York, building inventory matters: when we have inventory ready, and we're awarded a contract, we can move it to program costs and recognize revenue immediately. We've initiated building 20 platforms of inventory, and that enables much shorter recognition cycles. The government has done a lot of work getting contract award processes in place and we are starting to see the benefits.

Understood. Very helpful and thorough. One on the commercial side: with the large contract from February, does that change the construct of growth in that end market? You talked about the business development teams being active across channels.

We're excited about that commercial opportunity because it's likely the first of many constellations this customer needs. There's significant growth potential on the commercial side. We're exploring different avenues to overcome upfront capital needs for satellites. We can leverage our production line, mission operations software, and manufacturing capabilities to grow commercial business as well.

Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Koontz from Needham & Company. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks. I wanted to follow up on ALL.SPACE. Can you comment on the intellectual property and track record of the products? When do you think the product will be able to ship in material volumes, and is the supply chain ready or is there a lot of work to do there? Thank you.

ALL.SPACE is a strong company. Headquarters and technical expertise are based in the UK, but production capacity is in the U.S., and this is not an immature product. They are deployed, conducting exercises, and have contracts with the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. The terminal is a great fit for Golden Dome due to its jam-resistant assured communications. They have mass production in Alabama and York will expand its footprint in Alabama to support that production. Right now, military demand is the main driver, but the capability will scale to support unmanned systems demand, which is increasing rapidly. That market excites me because connectivity at scale is critical, and the combined York and ALL.SPACE capability will help enable it.

Your next question comes from the line of David Strauss from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Ben Tomik calling for David. I was wondering if you could go back to SDA and Transport Layer. For what you already have under contract for Tranche 1 and Tranche 2, is there any update to the launch schedule there? I know there were some delays. Also, from that funding, how much of that has been recognized already?

On launch schedule, the schedule is controlled by SDA and we need their permission to announce specific dates. It's safe to say the vehicles are mature and we feel they're ready to ship, but SDA will announce the next launch schedule.

On funding, we can't get into many details. Broadly speaking, for both Tranche Two programs we've received less than 50% of funding. We're in significant contract asset status, meaning we've incurred more cost and recognized more revenue than cash received—it's a timing issue and it will even out.

Got it. Could you provide any update on current build rates and how progress has been on the Potomac facility?

Potomac is coming together quickly. Its main function is assembly, integration, and test, and we've improved throughput significantly. At the beginning of Tranche 1, certain tests like vibration took about a week; today they routinely take a day. We're standing up production capability and receiving necessary ground test equipment. It will take a bit longer to fully ramp, but we expect full capacity in 2026 with the goal of scaling toward much higher annual production rates.

Your next question comes from the line of Mitch Ingles from Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Hey, everyone. I'm on for Brian Gesuale. Congrats on a solid quarter and thanks for the color. I had a quick question: you started building the first 20 platforms to accelerate time to delivery. What is your target inventory level by the end of the year, and how should we think about any potential cash headwind from that and what you expect for revenue recognition as you speed up delivery cadence?

We're building 20 platforms to inventory now, and we have another 11 that could be made available for inventory. We sized that based on launch vehicle stacks; the M-CLASS is larger and we wanted a full stack. We have contract opportunities where we could move those platforms immediately and integrate payloads. If payloads are ready, we can recognize revenue very quickly—historically we've completed a spacecraft build, integrated a payload, launched, and operated in orbit in about seven months in aggressive scenarios. Realistically, if contract awards happen in mid to late 2026, we could start recognizing revenue in Q4 or early 2027. Shorter program schedules plus inventory on hand means faster revenue recognition and shorter cycles for customers.

Thanks. One last one: on the commercial contract expected to start revenues in 2027, how should we think about the cadence and duration of that contract?

There will be a portion of revenue from that contract this year, but it's not large—less than $30 million. Most revenue will be in 2027 and 2028. I would think of that program as on the longer end relative to our accelerated government satcom programs—closer to two to three years—because it includes some innovative payload development that the customer and our CTO are developing.

Your next question comes from the line of Alexandra Mandry from Truist Securities. Please go ahead.

Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. You mentioned labor earlier; can you provide more color on the labor force and the ability to add and retain labor if needed?

We feel good about labor. Most expertise required for new missions is in engineering and software, and those teams are staffed well. The bulk of development work—PDRs and CDRs—occurs early in a program. As programs approach launch, software teams free up to work on new programs. Production technicians are a different area; as we expand production we will hire more technicians, and we've had success attracting skilled technicians. We've also automated a lot of ground testing and standardized the bus platform and software, which reduces hands-on labor needs. Engineering and management headcount is leveling; production technician growth will occur but it's not a requirement to double the workforce to support increased production. We expect moderate growth in technicians, not drastic increases.

At this time, there are no further questions. I would like to hand the conference over to Dirk Wallinger for closing remarks.

I really appreciate everyone taking the time to hear the story and allowing us the opportunity to clarify and add more understanding of the budgets and where we fit. We're very excited about where the budgets are sitting and our ability to deliver. With the number of contract vehicles we have and the budgets allocated for the different capabilities the country needs, we're extremely optimistic about what will happen over the next couple of quarters in 2026 and into 2027. We're also excited about delivering on our commercial constellations. Thank you so much, and have a good day.

This concludes today's call. Thank you all for attending. You may now disconnect.