Hello, and welcome to the Rocket Lab Q2 2022 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Arjun Kampani, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary. Thank you, sir. You may begin. Thank you. Hello, everyone. We're glad to have you join us for today's conference call to discuss Rocket Lab's Q2 2022 financial results. Our presenters are Rocket Lab Founder and CEO, Peter Beck, and Chief Financial Officer, Adam Spice. After our prepared comments, we will take questions. Before we begin the call, I'd like to remind you that our remarks may contain forward-looking statements that relate to the future performance of the company. These statements are intended to qualify for the safe harbor protection from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Any such statements are not guarantees of future performance, and factors that could influence our results are highlighted in today's press release and others contained in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such statements are based upon information available to the company as of the date hereof and are subject to change for future developments. Except as required by law, the company does not undertake any obligation to update these statements. Our remarks and press release today also contain non-GAAP financial measures within the meaning of Regulation G enacted by the SEC. Included in such release is a reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to the comparable financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. Lastly, this call is also being webcast with a supporting presentation, and a replay and a copy of the presentation will be available on our website for two weeks. Now, let me turn the call over to Peter Beck, our founder and CEO. Okay. Thanks, Arjun, and welcome everybody to today's review of Rocket Lab's business highlights and financial results for Q2 2022, presented by myself and our Chief Financial Officer, Adam Spice. Today's agenda, the presentation outlines our business accomplishments for the Q2, and it also highlights further achievements we've made since the end of the quarter. Adam will then talk through our financial results for the Q2 and our financial outlook for Q3. After that, we'll look forward to taking questions from the sell side, and then we'll finish today's call with a reminder of upcoming conferences we will be participating. With that snapshot of where the company is today, let's look at the specific achievements for this year's Q2. It was another strong quarter for the company with the successful launch of some really significant missions, as well as continued progress across our Space Systems business. We'll go into each of these achievements in more detail in the coming slides, but here's a quick snapshot. We launched 3 successful Electron missions, more than all other small launch providers combined for their entire year. One of those missions was our most complex and high-performance missions to date, the CAPSTONE mission to the Moon for NASA. We continue to see strong demand for Electron launches and secured another multi-launch deal. This deal will see us launch 15 spacecraft for commercial constellation operator HawkEye 360. We carried out the first mid-air capture of an Electron booster with a helicopter, advancing our rocket reusability program. We also made significant progress towards the development of our Neutron launch vehicle, breaking ground on our major production complex in Virginia. Turning our attention to space systems, we were also selected to build the solar panel array for NASA's GLIDE spacecraft. We also surpassed 50 missions with our MAX flight software, and we can commence construction at our Long Beach headquarters on the satellite constellation production line to support the manufacturing of 17 half-ton spacecraft buses for Globalstar's constellation under a $143 million contract. Go to the next slide. Three successful launches. We had a great quarter for launches, successfully launching three missions. The missions included a mission to the Moon for NASA, a dedicated launch for Earth imaging constellation BlackSky, and a rideshare mission for a range of U.S. and U.K. companies. Across the quarter, Electron delivered 37 satellites to precise orbits. The quarter once again cemented Rocket Lab's position as a launch provider of choice for constellation operators, with satellites deployed for four commercial constellation companies. Three out of the four of these were return customers for Electron. One of the missions in the Q2 was particularly significant however. This was the CAPSTONE mission to the Moon for NASA. It was a monumental and historic mission for Rocket Lab and for NASA. I'm going to spend a little bit more time going into some greater detail on this one. For those of you not familiar with CAPSTONE, it's a satellite designed to test the near-rectilinear halo orbit around the Moon. This orbit has never been flown before and is the same orbit NASA hopes to use for Gateway, a Moon orbiting space station that astronauts will live and work in as part of the Artemis program. As an aside, through our acquisition of SolAero, Rocket Lab is also providing the solar modules for the Gateway power and propulsion element. Back to CAPSTONE. In a nutshell, Rocket Lab launched the first mission of NASA's Artemis program to return humans to the Moon for the first time since 1970. This mission was significant and monumental for all humankind, not just for Rocket Lab, and a real testament to NASA's trust in Rocket Lab as a mission partner. Importantly, the mission was much more than just a launch for us. We provided a complete solution. CAPSTONE was launched to an initial low Earth altitude, a low Earth orbit on Electron. From there, our in-house designed and built Lunar Photon spacecraft, powered by our HyperCurie engine, provided six days of in-space propulsion, maneuvering, and communications to CAPSTONE. After a flawless launch on June 28th, and after six days of 24/7 spacecraft operations and multiple complex orbit raises, we ignited Lunar Photon's HyperCurie engine for the final time on July 4th to set CAPSTONE on a ballistic lunar trajectory. I'm immensely proud of the team for delivering flawlessly on this complex mission, initiating a new era of lunar exploration. NASA awarded the CAPSTONE contract to Rocket Lab in February 2020. In a little over two years, we developed a new in-space propulsion system capable of reaching deep space destinations. We designed and built the highly capable Lunar Photon spacecraft, and we increased Electron's performance, enabling it to lift over 300 kg. That's generally to be considered an unreasonably short development time, but we do like to take on a challenge and deliver, and I'm happy to say we have done just that once again. Beyond developing and operating the launch vehicle and the spacecraft for this mission, we worked with Space Exploration Engineering to develop a unique energy-efficient trajectory to the Moon. Unlike the Apollo missions in the 1960s and 1970s, which basically used an enormous rocket filled with a massive amount of fuel to go direct to the Moon, we took a different path. After Lunar Photon and CAPSTONE, with CAPSTONE integrated on the top, was launched to an initial low Earth orbit, we used the Lunar Photon spacecraft and its HyperCurie engine to carry out several days of orbit-raising maneuvers, essentially igniting the engine periodically to raise the highest point in the orbit until we got far enough away from Earth to escape its gravity and set a course to the Moon. This method is exciting because it proved that we can deliver interplanetary missions from a small rocket, making it faster and more affordable to go to places like the Moon, Mars, and Venus. Destinations that used to cost billions or hundreds of millions of dollars and take decades to develop are now within reach for tens of millions of dollars in a matter of months. Having successfully deployed the CAPSTONE spacecraft on a ballistic lunar trajectory, Lunar Photon is continuing to tour the Solar System and is currently around about 1.3 million kilometers away, 100,000 miles for you imperial people from Earth. We've used this extended mission time to push the spacecraft to its limits, learning what we can about communications and propulsion systems to inform our up-and-coming missions to Mars and Venus using similar high-energy Photon. As I've mentioned, the CAPSTONE mission was far more complex than just a standard Electron launch. It was our first deep space mission. While we have successfully launched and operated two Rocket Lab designed and built Photon spacecraft previously, this mission was the first flight of our high-energy deep space variant of the Photon spacecraft. It required the development of new in-space propulsion system in under two years. It was the first time we integrated MAX flight software into a Rocket Lab-built spacecraft. As you'll remember, the MAX flight software is an off-the-shelf flight software solution developed by Advanced Space in Colorado, a Colorado-based company we acquired late last year. The CAPSTONE mission was also our first mission planning and executing lunar trajectories. This is a complex precision work that often takes years in planning. In addition to developing CAPSTONE to a perfect trajectory for this mission, which was of course the primary goal, we have developed the team and the skills now to be able to deliver on other up-and-coming interplanetary missions, including Mars and Venus. We're very conscious of space sustainability, I think as everybody knows, and not leaving large rocket stages in orbit with every launch is important to us. Which is why we developed the launch system in such a way that Electron's second stage deorbits within a matter of days. With this mission, we broke our own record. The second stage actually deorbited the same day as launch. It was the first time using the Frontier-SDR Radio, our satellite radio, which Rocket Lab has an exclusive license with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to manufacture. Last but not least, the CAPSTONE mission was our heaviest lift to date, with Electron carrying a whopping 320 kg or 705 pounds. This is almost triple the lift capacity demonstrated by any other small launch provider. Rocket Lab satellites are now deep space proven. More than just delivering mission success for NASA, the mission means we have successfully flight proven our Lunar Photon deep space spacecraft platform. This positions us extremely well for future complex missions beyond LEO, and already we've received significant amount of interest from new customers in terms of having us develop their mission concept, design and build their spacecraft, launch it, and operate it in orbit. Now on to another major achievement in the quarter. We signed a multi-launch deal with HawkEye 360, a radio frequency geospatial analytics company. The company will see us deliver 15 satellites to low Earth orbit across 3 Electron missions anticipated between late 2022 and 2024. This mission joins a growing list of bulk launch agreements with commercial constellation operators, including those with Inspektor, Kinéis, and BlackSky. Supporting our vertical integration strategy, Rocket Lab will also supply HawkEye 360 with separation systems produced by Planetary Systems Corporation, the Maryland-based space hardware company we acquired in December 2021. Excitingly, the first of the 3 HawkEye 360 missions has been scheduled to lift off from Launch Complex 2 in Virginia later this year. Scheduled to lift off in December, it will be the inaugural flight from LC2 and the third pad Rocket Lab will have launched from. The key reason we haven't launched from LC2 yet has been delays with NASA certifying the agency's autonomous flight termination unit software. NASA officials have advised that they are on track to certify it in time for this December launch. In the Q2, we also hit a significant milestone in our program to make Electron reusable. We successfully caught a returning first stage with a helicopter, confirming the concept of operations for future aerial captures. This was a key moment in the program that brought us a step closer to recovering stages dry and refueling them. The next step from here is to not only catch a stage but fly it all the way back to land under the helicopter. We expect to attempt this later this year, but in the meantime, you'll start to see more and more red-striped Electrons coming down the production line as we build recovery-ready rockets into the standard production flow and process. While the Electron launch program continues to go from strength to strength, we're also making solid progress on the development of our new large launch vehicle, Neutron. In the Q2, we broke ground on the Neutron production complex near Launch Complex Two in Virginia. The 250,000 sq ft complex will be home to Neutron's production and assembly and is located at just a few miles from where Neutron's pad will be located on the eastern shore. We won't go into too much detail on Neutron today, as we'll be sharing a more fulsome program update during our Investor Day on September 21. Onto the space systems side of the business now. I'm pleased to confirm that Rocket Lab has been selected to manufacture the solar array panel for the NASA GLIDE spacecraft. GLIDE is the first mission dedicated to surveying the changes in the exosphere, the outermost layer of the Earth's atmosphere, which is super important for all of us. The array will be manufactured at our production complex in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which is home to the world's largest production line for space solar cells. Onto our space software. As of Q2 this year, Rocket Lab's MAX flight software has successfully flown on more than 50 missions. Developed by ASI, which was acquired by Rocket Lab in October 2021, MAX is an off-the-shelf spacecraft flight software used by leading aerospace prime contractors, the U.S. Air Force, U.S. DOD organizations, NASA, and commercial spacecraft developers and constellation operators. Further supporting Rocket Lab's vertical integration strategy, MAX software has now been used in 12 spacecraft launched via Electron. In the Q1 of this year, Rocket Lab was awarded a $143 million subcontract by MDA to build 17 half-ton spacecraft classes for the Globalstar constellation. Rocket Lab is also manufacturing spacecraft for Varda Space Industries, In-Space Missions, and the University of California, Berkeley, for NASA, for a NASA Mars mission. In the Q2, we quickly got construction work underway on the production facility for these spacecraft at our Long Beach headquarters. Construction is now substantially complete, and the facilities include a state-of-the-art 10,000 sq ft class 100 clean room. This is a significant investment in vertical integration. The satellites will feature components and subsystems produced by Rocket Lab's recently acquired companies, including solar panels and structures from SolAero Technology, software from ASI, reaction wheels from Sinclair Interplanetary and so on. With that quick recap of some of our major accomplishments in the Q2, let's delve into some of the additional achievements between the end of the quarter and now. Since the close of the quarter, we've launched another two successful missions, this time back-to-back launches for the National Reconnaissance Office. These missions took place just over three weeks apart, so we had prepared the launch vehicles and the pad to be able to support a turnaround in just 10 days. Ultimately, the NRO required some additional time to complete a software update on their payload. It was a change in the launch schedule that we could easily support, since Launch Complex One is a private launch range, so we didn't have to go around and work around any other launch provider's schedule. The missions were flawless, a flawless demonstration of responsive space in action, and I'll talk more about responsive space in some up and coming slides. With these two missions, Rocket Lab has now successfully launched four NRO missions on Electron, reliably serving the national security and intelligence community. Between the CAPSTONE launch at the end of Q2 and the first NRO mission at the start of Q3, we actually achieved a new record in launch turnaround time. After a successful mission to the Moon for NASA, our team delivered a flawless national security launch in just 15 days later. As you can see, that's the fastest turnaround ever achieved by a small launch provider. Continuing the national security and defense theme, I'm pleased to confirm that since Q2, Rocket Lab was also selected by Lockheed Martin to supply solar power for the Space Force's new missile warning satellite. The deal continues SolAero's long-term partnership with Lockheed Martin by powering the next generation of OPIR GEO satellite missile warning system. It further demonstrates our successful vertical integration strategy. Since the close of the last quarter, we also officially introduced our responsive space program. From day one, everything we've done has been designed to support responsive space. From manufacturing processes that use 3D printers to print an engine in 24 hours, to operating the first orbital launch sites, to developing our own modular spacecraft that can be quickly customized and integrated with customers' instruments. When we talk about responsive space, we're talking about the ability to rapidly replace or replenish new assets on orbit. This is a critical and growing need for government and commercial operators alike, because the unavoidable truth is that satellites do fail. Whether they age out, experience technical failure, or are disabled through deliberate actions, all satellites are vulnerable. Through responsive launch on Electron, we can replace these assets in a matter of hours or days, not months or years. We also know that launch is just one piece of that puzzle, which is why we can also have Rocket Lab designed and built satellites on the ground 24/7, awaiting the call to be integrated with the customer's payload and launched rapidly. This is a capability that is increasingly attractive to constellation operators, and we've already seen some customers look at building out their constellations with Rocket Lab spacecraft specifically to have this capability at the ready. While there's a lot of talk about responsive space, Rocket Lab is in the unique position of having the infrastructure, experienced team, and proven technology in place to enable it today. This includes three launch pads across two hemispheres. Launch Complex 2 in Virginia was purpose-built with this capability in mind. Proven rockets, payload processing facilities, personnel, launch sites, and ground stations capable of supporting 24-hour rapid call-up launch. The ability to receive, integrate, encapsulate, and launch spacecraft within 24 hours. Proven spacecraft technology already operating in more than 1,700 satellites in orbit. Streamlined and integrated manufacturing capability to build rockets and spacecraft quickly. The ability to reach a wide range of orbits and meet a broader range of customer requirements. All of this is not necessarily new at Rocket Lab or a new Rocket Lab capability. As I've discussed in this presentation and in recent media interviews, increasingly, our launch cadence is driven by and, in fact, slowed down by customers' readiness. This program is about working closely with customers to understand their mission requirements early and get them in a state of readiness so that when the day comes, they can call us up, and we'll have them on orbit in a matter of hours. With that, I'll hand over to Adam to provide a review of our Q2 financial results. Great. Thanks, Pete. I'll first re-review our Q2 2022 results and then discuss our outlook for the Q3. Q2 2022 revenue was $55.5 million, exceeding the high end of our guidance range of $51 million-$54 million, representing 36% sequential growth over the prior quarter. Our record revenue performance in the quarter was the result of three successful launches, as we had guided, and outperformance in our Space Systems segment led by our SolAero product line. Launch Services contributed $19.1 million or 191% quarter-on-quarter growth, representing 34% of total revenue in the quarter. Space Systems contributed $36.4 million, yielding 7% quarter-on-quarter growth, representing 66% of total revenue. Now turning to gross margin. GAAP and non-GAAP gross margin for the Q2 of 2022 were 9% and 22% respectively. This was outside the low end of our guidance on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis of 11% and 26% respectively. The lower gross margin versus guidance was a result of two primary factors, an unfavorable product mix within the Space Systems segment and lower overhead absorption in the Launch Services segment. Compared to the Q1 2022, where GAAP and non-GAAP gross margin were 9% and 24% respectively, Q2 gross margin trended slightly lower based on a mix shift to lower margin Launch Services revenue. In the Launch Services segment, specifically, GAAP gross margin was negative 12% in the Q2, flat with the prior quarter. In the Space Systems segment, GAAP gross margin was 20% in the Q2 versus 13% in the prior quarter. The expansion of gross margin quarter-over-quarter was driven by a favorable mix of higher margin products delivered in the quarter versus the prior quarter, despite the Q2 being negatively impacted by the introduction of stock-based compensation into SolAero production costs resulting from post-acquisition equity award vesting. Total production headcount ended Q2 2022 at 781, up 11 heads from June 30, 2022. In the face of increased production unit volumes, we continue to focus on constraining production headcount and identifying production efficiencies in pursuit of expanding gross margins across the business. Backlog declined $14.5 million during the Q2 to $531.4 million as a recognition of record revenue outpaced new bookings in the quarter. Significant portions of our business involve projects that are many months or years in formation, and as a result, converting opportunities into new bookings is lumpy. A recent example of this was the MDA Constellation build contract that resulted in a significant backlog uplift of $143 million, but was a long time in the making. Our pipeline of opportunities remains robust and we look forward to growing our backlog as we progress through the remainder of the year. When we compare the Q2 2022 revenue on a year-on-year basis, the strength, evolution, and diversity of our business is evident. Total revenue was up 392% or more than $44 million when compared to the Q2 of 2021. Acquisitions have played a major role in this year-on-year growth. Revenue contribution from the recently acquired ASI, TSC, and SolAero businesses added approximately $28 million of revenue in the Q2 of 2022. The organic Rocket Lab product lines have experienced significant growth as well, having grown more than $16 million, representing a 144% growth year on year, and contributed nearly $28 million in the Q2 of 2022. As a quick aside, the growth and execution in our Space Systems segment is a good example of how our business has evolved and diversified. In total, the Space Systems segment revenue was $36.4 million, reflecting an increase of 893% or more than $32.7 million over the prior year. As Pete covered in the previous slides, in our Space Systems business, we now have revenue contribution for almost every U.S. government defense and civil agency, the majority of large U.S. primes, and a diverse mix of global customers. This is allowing us richer and deeper customer engagement, which can be seen in our financial results, backlog, and forward guidance, which I'll get to shortly. Now turning to gross margin. GAAP and non-GAAP gross margin in the Q2 of 2022 of 9% and 22% respectively, compared to GAAP and non-GAAP gross margin of 22% and 25% respectively in the Q2 of 2021. The decline in gross margin year-on-year for both GAAP and non-GAAP was driven largely by the mix impact of the addition of lower margin revenue from the SolAero acquisition. In the Launch Services segment, specifically, GAAP gross margin of negative 12% in the quarter compares to negative 3% in the Q2 of 2021. The decline in gross margin year-on-year was driven by less absorption of overhead, exacerbated by revised overhead rates that were impacted by a range of inflationary and other factors, including staff costs, but specifically stock-based compensation for production staff that factored in much less in the Q2 2021 period prior to Rocket Lab coming public. In the Space Systems segment, GAAP gross margin of 20% in the quarter compares to 73% in the Q2 of 2021. These declines in gross margin year-on-year were driven largely by the mix impact of the addition of lower margin revenue from the SolAero acquisition, as well as previous, previously referenced stock-based compensation for production staff, stepped up relative to periods prior to Rocket Lab coming public in August 2021. Turning to operating expenses. GAAP operating expenses for the Q2 of 2022 were $38.1 million, which was approximately $900,000 lower than the low end of guidance. Non-GAAP operating expenses for the Q2 of 2022 were $25.2 million, in line with the high end of guidance. The quarter-over-quarter step up in both GAAP and non-GAAP operating expenses was primarily driven by an increase in staffing and related stock-based compensation expense, prototyping related to Neutron vehicle development, the Electron booster recovery initiatives, and Photon development projects, which were partially offset by the change in fair value of contingent consideration related to the PSC acquisition. In R&D specifically, GAAP expenses were up $5.7 million or 42% quarter-over-quarter. Non-GAAP expenses were up $4.3 million or 63% quarter-over-quarter. We anticipate the trend of sequential growth in R&D to continue as we ramp investment in Neutron launch vehicle development in particular. Quarter ending R&D headcount was 308, representing an increase of 29 heads from June thirtieth, 2022. In SG&A, GAAP expenses declined quarter-over-quarter, $4.1 million or 18%, driven primarily by, as mentioned earlier, the change in fair market value of consideration related to the PSC acquisition. Non-GAAP SG&A expenses remained relatively flat between the quarters. Quarter ending SG&A headcount was 182, representing an increase of 14 heads from June 30, 2022. On a year-on-year perspective, both GAAP and non-GAAP operating expenses were up as the company continues to invest heavily in broadening our Space Systems portfolio of products and services, Electron recovery initiatives, and Neutron development. The company is executing and achieving milestones on numerous ambitious projects, and we look forward to these investments generating shareholder value for years to come. Year-over-year GAAP R&D was up by $10.6 million, driven by a one-time $3.1 million increased stock-based compensation incentive related to the CAPSTONE mission, staffing and prototyping expenses directed to Photon and Neutron platform developments. Non-GAAP R&D was up $3.5 million, driven by a combination of higher prototyping and staff costs. Year-over-year GAAP SG&A was up $11.9 million, driven by an increase in various public company costs, including initial D&O insurance, legal and audit and professional services, as well as stock-based compensation and acquisition-related performance incentives and amortization of purchased intangibles. Non-GAAP SG&A was up by $7.4 million, driven by similar GAAP items referenced earlier. Net cash used in operating activities totaled $38.3 million, driven sequentially higher by $10.7 million in greater net loss in Q2 versus Q1, resulting from higher R&D costs related to investments in Neutron, Photon, and Electron booster recovery activities. Cash consumed from investing activities totaled $12.3 million in Q2 compared to $71.8 million in Q1. The sequential reduction in cash consumed from investing activities was mostly driven by a lack of acquisition outflows in Q2 versus Q1, offset partially by a near 2x increase in CapEx investments related to Neutron development, Photon manufacturing infrastructure build-out, and Electron booster recovery initiatives. Cash consumed from financing totaled $15 million. Driven primarily by the timing of the tax withholding payment made in Q2 of 2022 for employee performance share units that vested and cash taxes was withheld in Q1 of 2022, and the payment of contingent consideration related to the ASI acquisition. Overall, cash consumed in Q2 was $61.1 million compared to $84.3 million in Q1, with Q2 ending cash equivalents and restricted cash balances of $546.6 million. With that, let's turn to our guidance for the Q3 of 2022. We expect revenue in the Q3 to range between $60 million and $63 million, which reflects $37 million-$40 million of contribution from Space Systems and $23 million of contribution from Launch Services, which assumes three launches or one remaining launch in the quarter. We expect Q3 GAAP gross margin to range between 12% and 15% and non-GAAP gross margin to range between 22% and 25%. These expected GAAP and non-GAAP gross margin improvements are driven by expected sequential beneficial changes in product mix within our Space Systems segment and a higher average selling price per launch in our Launch Services segment. We expect Q3 GAAP operating expenses to range between $41 million and $43 million and non-GAAP operating expenses to range between $27 million and $29 million. This quarter-on-quarter step up is driven primarily by increased R&D staff costs and prototype expenses related to the scaling of our Photon product family and continued growth in our investments in the new Neutron launch vehicle development program. We expect Q3 GAAP and non-GAAP net interest expense to be $2 million. Lastly, we expect Q3 adjusted EBITDA loss to range between $8 million and $12 million and basic shares outstanding to be approximately 471 million shares. With that, I'd like to open up the call for questions. Operator? Absolutely. We will now begin the QA session. If you would like to ask a question, please press Star followed by One on your touchtone keypad. If for any reason you would like to remove that question, please press Star followed by Two. Again, to ask a question, press Star One. As a reminder, if you are using a speakerphone, please remember to pick up your handset before asking a question. We will pause here briefly to allow questions to generate in the queue. The first question is from the line of Suji Desilva with Roth Capital. You may proceed. Hi, Peter. Hi, Adam. Congratulations on all the progress here. Can you talk about maybe the responsive space program? It sounds like with the lead times there, you may be able to kinda exceed your launch guidance in a given quarter. Just want to understand if that's the case, kinda, you know, Adam's the turns kinda concept from seventies or whether, you know, that's unrealistic and you're able to kinda guide and these will be visible kinda quarter upon quarter. Yeah. I'll take that to start and then Adam might want to pile on. I mean, it is kinda mentioned, you know, the thing that drives our launch cadence is customer readiness. That's the single biggest influencer. The Responsive Space program kind of does two things for us. One is it enables us to work with a customer even more closely to better judge their customer's, in fact, readiness. The second part of it is, you know, there's a growing focus on responsive space and, you know, although we've had all these capabilities, we've never really, you know, advertised them, you know, as such. So that was kind of the rationale here. Within a quarter, you know, it's completely feasible that there could be a pop-up launch, you know, that would. We have the rockets to support that. We always like to carry some inventory there. So you know, you could easily expect, you know, a pop-up launch within the quarter. Sure. Okay. Yeah, I think. Great. Thanks, Peter. Let me add a- Go ahead. Yeah. Suji, I'll add a little bit to that. I think that it doesn't really change the way that we're forecasting the business right now. I think what it, you know, the rapid responsiveness, you know, really we know that there's budget that's being added to, for programs to support this. That's helpful as far as a tailwind. I think also, you know, as we get a little bit more experience with these types of programs, we'll be able to model kind of what that looks like going forward. 'Cause, you know, you know, obviously the more frequent we launch, the better it is across our business. I think that, you know, these programs do nothing but help that. We just don't have a tremendous amount of visibility as to kind of when they're going to start to pop up in a meaningful way. As Pete said, you know, we're doing everything that we can to be ready to support those. I think, you know, with these most recent launches, particularly for the NRO, I think we've shown that we've got an ability to call up launch very quickly, and we could have done it much faster, were it not for some delays that we were not in control of. Again, I think it's a great opportunity. I think it's going to be a big focus for us going forward, and we're very excited about it. Yeah. No, it sounds highly differentiated too. I also, the second question I feel compelled to ask is even though, I mean, the backlog came down, but I know that you shouldn't read much into that, but I'm just curious with the broader economic and macro concerns right now, if perhaps some of the newer companies trying to put constellations up are maybe being a little more cautious or pushing out plans or if you're, if you think your pipeline is more, you know, really kinda not as exposed to that phenomenon. Curious what you're seeing there. Thanks. Yeah, I mean, I would say that the quality of our pipeline is extremely high. You know, so far, you know, we haven't seen kind of any impacts from a broader, you know, economic standpoint. You know, the typical Rocket Lab customer is a mix, but like I say, the backlog and customer contract quality is really high. Yeah, I would basically add to that. Bet. Suji Desilva, if you look at the types of customers that we have too, even though we have roughly a 50/50 split between government and commercial, even within our commercial customers, there's a vast majority of those have government support contracts, right? You know, we have very little in our backlog, I'd say, that is, that's pure commercial for where there's a government that's not ultimately kind of standing behind providing demand for that, for that content. I think for the most part, you know, the government spending is much more predictable, you know, once it's been at kind of provided or allocated in a budget. I think we feel in this environment, yeah, I can understand how there's going to be some companies that are going to get a little nervous about ability of some of their customers to continue to finance themselves, where I don't think we necessarily have that same risk, because quite a few of our customers actually went through a going public process last year. Which, you know, again, not the greatest conditions compared to where we were a year ago, but still much better than being in the private markets. I think the ones that are private actually do have a lot of strategic engagement with U.S. and other government customers, which gives it a little bit more stability as far as kind of being able to raise financing to keep the businesses moving forward. Okay. That's reassuring, color there. Thanks, Peter. Thanks, Adam. No worries. Just adding on that, I mean, I think Adam touched on that in the presentation that, you know, a lot of these programs are, you know, months to years in formation. You know, these contracts are always, you know, fairly lumpy. You know, it takes a significant amount of work. But what we really didn't, you know, show is the pipeline of opportunities, which we think is very, very strong. We're not concerned about that. Okay. Thanks, guys. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Erik Rasmussen with Stifel. You may proceed. Yeah. Thanks for taking the questions. You wanted to sort of stay on launch. You know, it looks like the pace has obviously picked up. I appreciate the commentary around the customer readiness. It seems to be the limiting factor. You know, you'll have one more launch for this quarter. How should we be thinking about the sort of the year and maybe you know the target number of launches? And is there anything that can be done? Or what you know what are some of the things you're doing to sort of pick up that cadence? Sure. I think we previously guided sort of 12 launches in the year. You know, what we're really working more closely with our customer is, and you know, we kind of joke that it feels like manifest is a game of Whac-A-Mole. You know, what we have done slightly differently is be a little bit more aggressive with you know, the booking of the launch slot. Historically, if someone books a launch slot, then we just carve that slot out and say, "Well, nothing happens in that slot." We're a little bit more aggressive now of, you know, if there's a slot there to, you know, to have, you know, two people within that same slot. We're getting to know which kind of programs or customers tend to move around, so we can manage the manifest, you know, more accurately. Just communicating with our customers that, you know, to make sure that they don't wait to the last minute to tell us that their spacecraft is going to be delayed, which you know is kind of typical within the industry. Erik, I guess I would add then. Sorry, Erik. I guess just to put a little more color on that one too. I think that as far as, you know, adding more launches to the manifest, whether it's a little bit later this year or as we head into 2023, I think some of the pretty clear failures and pretty significant delays from our aspirational launch competitors on the small launch side are really creating opportunities for payloads to come our way, right? I think that, you know, we've witnessed a bit of a, you know, we've seen things, scenarios where the customers are trying to play almost a game of chicken, where they're wanting to take advantage of some, you know, lower launch prices being offered to them based on some either desperation or people who are just, you know, really, you know, early in the game and trying to build commitment to their platform. When they don't execute, either because their rockets fail or their programs continue to have pushouts and the customer ultimately gets nervous about keeping their payloads manifest on those rockets, those will start coming our way, I believe. I think that, you know, as time. You know, we've always said that, you know, at the end of the day, you actually have to deliver a working product. You know, we've been able to do that while many others have faltered. As that faltering becomes more evident, I think it just pushes these kind of payloads that we're kind of hoping to take advantage of bargain basement, kind of introductory pricing to a more reliable platform such as ours. I think it's kind of hard to predict when we'll see sort of a more meaningful kind of effect from that. I think it's likely. Oh, great. That's helpful. It sounds like maybe then there could be some upward pressure in pricing that you could expect from this sort of dynamic that's playing out, given that you know, we're starting to see some separation between yourselves and others who've not been successful. I think we've been pretty steadfast in holding what we think is, you know, attractive pricing. Certainly, you know, we're not immune to people putting sticker prices out there that are just, you know, unrealistic because they don't really understand what it takes or what it costs to run our rocket business. You know, we understand what those costs are. We, you know, haven't just kind of thrown in the towel and chased kind of ridiculous pricing down the rabbit hole. I do think that as options winnow and demand continues to build, I think those that are positioned to supply the market with a quality product are going to benefit from, you know, higher prices. I think you're exactly right. I expect that trend to become evident in the future. Great. Then maybe just a last one, and this will be for you, Adam. On the margins, obviously some pressure in Q2. We're seeing a little bit of lift in Q3, but how should we be thinking about, you know, margins, you know, as we sort of exit the year? What's a good trend, you know, that we should be, you know, sort of modeling? Yeah, you know, I think we're going to stick to our quarter by quarter guidance. I think it's, you know, when you look at margin, there are a few factors that obviously heavily influence that. You know, it's becoming a diverse set of factors because of the diversity of our business. On the launch side, it's really all about launch cadence. You know, we've definitely picked up our build rate, so we've pretty much hit our marks on how many vehicles we wanted to build in 2022, which is great. That's an important requirement. Also as Pete mentioned earlier, it's customer readiness, making sure we get those launches off. Really, we've talked before about we hit our target model for Electron from margin perspective when we get to two or more launches per month. We're about halfway there. And again, where we see demand in the marketplace, we're confident we're going to get there. We think it's roughly on the same timelines that we've been communicating all along. You know, we feel very good about it. You know, also what Pete mentioned earlier, he gave an update on the booster recovery for Electron. You know, that's going to be a meaningful enabler of seeing some of those rapid improvements in the margin profile of the business. Because you go from building every vehicle being expendable to having a fleet of vehicles that you refurbish and reuse. I think that from that perspective, that's always been part of our plan. Again, the success that we saw in actually rendezvousing and capturing that rocket was an important step forward in proving that that can become a reality. Again, I think we feel very confident in the margin profiles that we'd previously communicated. We, you know, again, we're making progress against those. Right. On the Space Systems business, you know, what would be some of the things that, you know, we'll see a boost there? Is it really dependent on mix? Yeah, it's really dependent on mix. You know, there's so many different things going on in that Space Systems business from our design services contracts to the manufacturing of the satellite buses themselves, which are just really getting underway. You know, the component businesses that we've developed internally and also the ones we've acquired actually kind of come out of the chute with attractive gross margins to begin with. So it's not really, there's not really a scaling challenge with those businesses. I think the real important focus item for us to achieving and maintaining healthy gross margins in Space Systems is really around implementing some of the things that we know that we need to do on the SolAero side of the business. Because, you know, that brought with it meaningful, you know, revenue run rate that we stated, you know, when we acquired the company was in the high single-digit gross margins. You know, we have a path and a target to get to 30 points of gross margin for that business. When we achieve that, you know, balancing that with the other higher existing gross margin, it'll land us exactly where we want to be. I think we know what we need to do. It's just a matter of time. You know, when we did the SolAero acquisition, we said it was about a, you know, a 24-month path to get from kind of where they were to where we want to go. Nothing is really pushing off of that view. You know, we remain encouraged by the fact that, you know, the new business that we sign up kind of continues to come in at higher gross margins than what existed in the existing backlog when we closed the deal in January. You know, all the indicators are pointing in the right direction that we can achieve the margin targets that we were hoping for in Space Systems and in the Launch side. Great. Thanks so much. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Ron Epstein with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hey, good afternoon, good wherever you might be in the world. Just maybe a couple quick ones. This week we saw an announcement, Northrop Grumman has cut a deal with Firefly Aerospace to get some engines. When we think about Neutron and some of the launch needs that we might be seeing out of the defense community with, you know, some of the big primes there, are there opportunities for you all with the bigger rocket, with bigger payloads, with the big defense primes? Yes, for sure, Ron. You know, if you look at Neutron already, I mean, we already won an NSSL contract, you know, if you look at who's won an NSSL contract, it's basically ULA, Blue Origin and us. So we already have very, very strong customer engagement. There's no better validation than your customer actually investing in the development of the vehicle and from a US government side. You know, we have a strong relationship with the primes across a wide range of business units. You know, we see Neutron as kind of, you know, a fairly disruptive vehicle within the market, and I'm sure the primes will, you know, take advantage of it. You know, we have no need to, you know, partner with a prime to be able to develop that vehicle, and bring it to market. Got it. Maybe on the M&A front, are you all looking at more potential M&A in the systems business? I mean, we like to keep kind of half a dozen to a dozen, you know, companies in the chute. What I will say is that we haven't seen the valuations of those private companies, you know, come in line with probably the public market. There seems to be a bit of hysteresis there. You know, we're certainly not going to pay over the odds for anything there. You know, we continue a very active M&A strategy. There's a few things that we would like to add to the quiver. We're being very disciplined about it in the current market. Got it. Then maybe just one last quick question. You know, with the Russians out of the market seemingly permanently now, if we look out, say, 3, 4 years from now, and I know, I mean, if you can't answer it, don't obviously, but, where could the launch cadence go now that that big provider is effectively out? Well, I mean, for you know. It's only gone one way. You know, there was enough. Yeah ... pretty launch demand as it was for, you know, I think we've talked about this in that, in that sort of 2024-2027 timeframe. You have a tremendous number of mega constellations coming to market, all requiring launch, and there's a massive launch deficit in that period of time. Removal, you know, I think they, Russia was either the second or the third-largest launch provider by volume from the market. All of that launch has gotta go somewhere. We also see launch becoming, you know, acquired fairly rapidly, you know, programs like the Project Kuiper that have consumed, you know, basically all the remaining launch capacity on a number of vehicles. Really, you know, it presents a tremendous opportunity for us and Neutron. We're being very, very selective with respect to who we, you know, who we partner with on that one. Because, you know, a number of customers aren't looking for one or two launches. They're looking to acquire years of Neutron's launch abilities. You know, we're just being, you know, very conservative about who we, who we provide that to, who's going to be at the pad in the right time, and who's going to be real. Those are kind of the considerations that we are making as we work with those customers. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Matthew Akers with Wells Fargo. You may proceed. Hi. Thanks. Good afternoon. Thanks for the questions. Can you talk about kinda margins and profitability on the responsive launches? I know you talked about how that will sort of benefit your overhead absorption, but you know, I guess you're the only provider who's sort of demonstrated that capability. You know, is that something you're going to be able to charge kind of a premium for launch? Then on the other side, I guess you know, are there additional costs that need to come with that or is that sort of something you can do mostly out of capacity that you already have online? Yeah. I know I know that's a good question. I mean, I think it's universally understood that, you know, an on-demand service commands a premium. Certainly that's been, you know, our experience to date when we've had both government and commercial customers come to us with the short-term work, you know. Those certainly come at a premium because, you know, if you have a nice production cadence and flow and launch flow, and then something jumps in the middle of it, then, you know, there's certainly, you know, additional value that you've created. With respect to, you know, to costs, I mean, Adam will provide you a more fulsome financial answer, but my kind of point here is, you know, you're not flexing with a whole bunch of staff to meet these. You know, your staff cost is relatively fixed. We like to carry inventory anyway. It's just kind of reprioritization of staff and projects to allow the flux. You know, there will be some additional staff carried in a small number to enable certain things, but generally it's a reprioritization. Yeah. Matt, I think following on your point there, on the revenue side, what we've seen is, you know, every year we seem to have customers that come with short-term launch needs. You know, it's a little bit different with this U.S. government responsive launch because that's much more planned and coordinated. If you kinda take the range of kind of a mix of kind of commercial and government customers who either have planned responsive launch requirements or commercial customers that show up with a very defined short-term launch window that they need to meet, hit, prices have been on average, probably 15%-30% higher than our sticker price. That kinda gives you a bit of an example of what the premium kinda looks like for this kind of responsive type of capability. Then our sticker price again being called, you know, $7.5 million is kind of what we advertise a baseline Electron launch to be. On the cost side of things, as Pete mentioned, you know, one of the valuable characteristics of being so vertically integrated, in fact, owning our own launch facility in New Zealand is the fact that most of what we do is fixed, right? Fixed costs. The incremental cost of doing a responsive launch is really nothing different than a well-planned out manifested launch that's out, you know, 6, 12 months from now. I think it's really all beneficial to margin because you're seeing a significant uptick in average selling price and your cost of goods sold, including your kind of near term kind of launch period costs are not really affected by it. It's all goodness. Okay, great. Thanks. That's helpful. I guess just one more. I just want to ask about labor and, you know, just a lot of companies having issues finding people at this point. Is that something that you've seen or do you expect to be a bottleneck in the near future, or you feel like you're already pretty well staffed for this year? Yeah, I mean, you know, talent is always a challenge. I would say that we made some pretty significant changes to the way that we were doing recruiting in the last sort of six months. You know, those have borne really great results. Also, you know, we are kind of seeing that, you know, engineers want to work on projects that actually launch and within, you know, successful companies. As kind of, you know, other folks kind of failed to execute or had very long-term ambitious plans that, you know, that also kind of failed to execute on. You know, we don't get into a pissing contest with price. We tend to attract the engineers that are really excited to work on real projects and deliver real hardware. You know, the bar to getting into Rocket Lab is extraordinarily high, and people kind of know and respect that. Just kind of a long-winded way of saying I think every company is facing kind of talent issues. You know, we've been much more successful in the last quarter or so in feeding the machine than we ever have before. Got it. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Edison Yu with Deutsche Bank. You may proceed. Hey, thanks, and congrats on CAPSTONE. That's quite extraordinary. Wanted to come back to the topic on Neutron and sort of the environment for mega constellations. In the context of everything that's sort of going on, obviously you have OneWeb merging. There's some rumors about some other constellations out there. How are you thinking about the timing of when to decide who the first customers are for launch? I guess what could possibly influence that? You know, what I'd say there, Edison, is like, typically we don't sign contracts that are kind of floppy. If someone wants, for example, to secure an Electron launch, it's a 10% non-refundable deposit down before we'll engage. You know, there's kind of two sides to this equation, is that, you know, we need to determine who is going to be you know the best partner, especially when they're looking to consume a tremendous amount of launch, you know, from us. You know, the customer also has to be willing to you know to make that investment, you know, into launch. You know, the more real the customer is, the more real they expect a launch vehicle to look. You know, the less real a launch vehicle is, the less real a contract is and looks. You know, formal commitment. There's no cash paid. You know, our focus is really on you know, working with all of those customers, determining which one is going to actually be at the pad. Those customers in turn are looking at us and looking to see development milestones. They're asking us the same question, well, is this vehicle going to be at the pad when you say it's going to be? The rubber hits the road when money exchanges hands at that point. Yeah. Edison, I would add a little bit more to that, too, the fact that, you know, now that we've become a much more diversified company, and, you know, everyone views us as, you know, a launch company, which, you know, certainly that's the core. But we're really looking to put more deals together that have that are multifaceted, right? It may not be, you know, the first customer that we announced for Neutron is, you know, probably going to involve more than just launch, right? We have a lot of things that we bring to market, and we're looking for much broader end-to-end customer relationships. You know, I think that that's one of the values of having kind of the breadth that we have now, is that, you know, it's not, it's rarely becoming just a launch contract. It's usually launch contract plus other things kind of in partnership with that, whether it's, you know, components for people's satellites, you know, whether it involves, you know, design services, you know, on orbit management and so forth. We're looking to create much more holistic relationships and package deals. It's a little more complex, and it also kind of winnows down the field of who kind of you want to partner with as well. It becomes that much more important that who you're partnering with is going to ultimately, you know, deliver their constellation, and you're not going to be kind of, you know, left with a kind of vaporware type of contract. Understood. Just one follow-up, kind of related. There's certainly a lot of competing or new competition coming to the market and particularly in sort of the call it 1-1.5-ton payload. I think we discussed this before, but just curious if any refresh. What's your sort of view on that kind of sizing versus, you know, you're kind of at the small end with Electron, and then you have Neutron coming. How do you view that segment of size for the market? Yeah. You know, there's been emerging competition coming for as long as, you know, we've been flying Electron. As of yet, you know, it just hasn't materialized. I think, you know, it's easy to kind of to talk about disruptive technologies. It's actually super hard to do it and even harder to do it reliably and consistently. Not being as arrogant to say that there's not going to be competition at some point arrive. It's just, you know, it's been arriving for in the last decade, but has not quite got there yet. With respect to the one ton class, I mean, we were very, you know, very deliberate in the size of launch vehicle for a small dedicated launch vehicle that we developed. You know, we really think we've hit the sweet spot. Now with respect to the kind of the one ton class launch vehicles, you know, our view has always been, and the fundamental reason why we didn't develop one is, you're in a complete no man's land with a one ton vehicle. So if you've got a dedicated small satellite that you need launched, you know, Electron and Electron's price point is absolutely ideal. Nobody charges you less for half filling up a rocket. Like, if you want to buy a dedicated rocket, then, you know, you buy a dedicated rocket. If you've only got a 100 or 200 or 300 kg payload, then you've just bought a much more expensive rocket than you needed. Then on the flip side, from a rideshare perspective, you're competing directly with, you know, a Falcon 9 Transporter mission. So it's just the worst of all worlds. It's too small to be an effective rideshare vehicle and, you know, too big to be a cost competitive dedicated launch vehicle. Yeah, and I think, as Adam mentioned previously, there's a lot of new entrant pricing out there. A lot of folks really, you know, don't have the experience to know what it actually costs to, you know, to build and operate a launch vehicle. A lot of capture pricing going on that will be, you know, completely unsustainable, you know, in the future. If we felt that 1 ton was a sweet spot, then we would have built a vehicle, you know, for that. We could certainly, you know, pivot to building one very quickly. We'd honestly think that is the worst of all worlds. Great. Thanks for the insight. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Austin Moeller with Canaccord. You may proceed. Hi. Good afternoon, Peter and Adam. My first question here. Earlier this week, Maxar announced that they're moving into the smallsat market, if you will, with a proliferated LEO bus that's sort of scalable to 150-500 kilograms. Are you sort of seeing the same kind of trends right now within the manufacturing market where a lot of companies are sort of moving their constellations from what had been CubeSats up to slightly more capable systems in that sort of you know 150-600 kilogram range that are not quite an exquisite 5,000-kilogram satellite, but do have you know the capacity for bigger batteries, bigger solar panels and more capability? Yeah, absolutely, Austin. This has been a trend that we've witnessed and seen over many years. You know, if you roll back a couple of years, you know, we would fly a CubeSat customer, and they would do a mission demonstration that would enable them to raise capital or prove a sensor, and then they would move into a more capable platform. You know, we see this across the board. You know, this is why we think, you know, going back to Edison's questions, why the class of Electron launch vehicle, you know, suits this market very well. Yep, no. That is what we continue to see is you kind of you know cut your teeth on a CubeSat, graduate into a more wholesome platform. Then ultimately typically how it rolls is you know you'll even on your larger platform, as you look for a you know a rideshare cheap launch, you'll get it on orbit, prove out the capability of the spacecraft. Then when you actually need to put the spacecraft into you know into the desired orbits to be commercial, that's when we often see those customers coming back again and buying bulk buys of Electrons to deploy their constellation to the exact orbit. I think you can look across a number of those bulk buyers that we've signed, and see that evolution, you know, consistently across all of them. Great. That's very interesting. I just wanted to comment. Congratulations on the achievement with the CAPSTONE mission. Now that you've sort of demonstrated you know, more interplanetary mission capability, I know the company's talked about doing a Venus mission soon. Is the intent there to monetize some of that data collected from the Venus mission and be able to sell that? I mean, look, the Venus mission is a nights and weekends using, you know, old, cold hardware kind of a mission. You know, the science team working on that is, you know, they fund themselves. You know, anybody who wants to be a part of that program has to bring their own funding. Undoubtedly, you know, the data will be of huge scientific value and, you know, there could be, you know, opportunities to, you know, to monetize that. What I would say is where the real focus is now that, you know, we've proven that, you know, we can build and operate a spacecraft that's capable of interplanetary flight is actually taking that investment we've made in that Lunar Photon platform and the proof points that we now have and developing missions, you know, with our end customers. Which is the most exciting thing about that whole mission, really. I mean, you know, you sit down with a planetary scientist from NASA and, you know, they're in their entire career, they've expected to do maybe two missions to a planet in their entire professional career. Generally, these missions are measured in decades and billions or hundreds of millions. Just sitting down with a planetary scientist now saying, "Well, for some tens of millions of dollars and a few months' time, we can go to Mars or we can go to this asteroid," it's really changed the game and changed the way that everybody's thinking about actually having, you know, how you do interplanetary science and what is the out of the possible now. We see that platform as being really disruptive. You know, we're looking forward to doing some, you know, really exciting missions, you know, in the future with it. That sounds super exciting. Just one more, if I may. This might be a question for Adam. If you haven't already, can you just sort of delineate what specifically in the quarter within the mix of Space Systems caused the lower gross margin there? Yeah. If you look in the mix, it's really. Everything that we're doing in Space Systems right now is influenced by SolAero because it came with so much revenue relative to everything else. It's really more than anticipated SolAero contributions in the quarter was the primary one. Everything else is kind of on, you know, on the margin. I think the other parts of our Space Systems business have, you know, reasonably, you know, good margins. You know, they were good when we acquired the assets. I think the stuff that we developed internally has generated good margins. It's really just the mix. I think again, we mentioned we knew that there were some improvements that we need to do SolAero, where we love the the strategic nature of the SolAero business. We, you know, it proved itself to be incredibly strategic in the in the MDA Globalstar constellation win. It's proven to be very strategic on others projects that we're pursuing. Love the business. Tremendous amount of opportunity there. You know, we're relatively early in that process of finding those opportunities and bringing not only kind of, you know, our, you know, broad manufacturing capabilities to bear on it, but also capital, right? I think there's. It was a business that wasn't, you know, kind of fed particularly well by the prior owners. I think we're looking for ways to put more capital in that business and do things a little bit differently. Yeah, it's really that was the skewing of the margins in the quarter. Okay. I guess after we sort of get through that 24-month timeline for transformation in that business and you can get us above the objective 30% gross margin, then we can think about Space Systems being back in the 50%-60% range. Yeah. I think we've always been consistent in talking about kind of the low- to mid-50s%. I you know, there are certainly elements of that business that are 60%+. Really, when you look at it on a consolidated Space Systems basis, you know, low- to mid-50s% is where we kind of set the bar. Okay, great. Thanks for all the insights there. Sure. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Cai von Rumohr with Cowen. You may proceed. Yes, thank you very much. I know it's been a long call. Maybe you could comment on supply chain inflation and FX, basically, you know, what impact they're having on your business. I know it's a complex question, so maybe just hit the high points. Yeah. Hey, Cai von Rumohr. From a supply chain perspective, you know, because we're so vertically integrated, unless raw materials stop flowing, then we don't typically see any huge impact. Now, not saying we haven't had any supply chain challenges. I think we've got a great supply chain team that manages things very, very well. We keep quite a lot of inventory and WIP and long lead items. But you know, we've been able to manage our way through that. To date, you know, we haven't delayed a launch or a spacecraft delivery or anything that I'm aware of with respect to challenging supply chain issues. Ironically, the biggest supply chain challenge that we face is boring stuff like steel and concrete for building Neutron stuff and CNC machines for the Neutron program. Like that stuff, you know, boring stuff is, it's just not available as available as it used to be. And then from an inflation and foreign exchange perspective, I'll let Adam comment on some of those more fully, but, you know, we're all of us are feeling the impacts of inflation. Your costs are going up. You saw that in, you know, some of the commentary here in these earnings with more additional costs in staff. You know, the foreign exchange exposures we have between New Zealand and the US are generally favorable because the New Zealand dollar has performed very, very poorly against the US. Adam, you're probably better to you know, answer those more accurately than I. No, I think you've done a great job. I think really the foreign exchange is real. You know, from a P&L perspective has helped us because the cost of New Zealand, relatively speaking, have gone down. We do have a significant employee base there. I think the point that Pete mentioned earlier that, you know, we're very vertically integrated, so we're less exposed, I think, in general than most other companies. Again, the exception being wage inflation, which we're all seeing, right? I think it for the most part, you know, it doesn't keep me up at night, right now, inflation impacting every part of our business. You know, a significant portion of our costs are related to human capital, and those costs continue to go up. The last one. Strategically, when you think about taking orders for Neutron, obviously, the longer you wait, the better your visibility of the cost, the visibility of the quality of the clients. Maybe, you know, you want to lock up some early on. How do you think about that? At what point, you know, are you going to be more aggressive about trying to actually sign those orders? Yeah, it's a great question. You know, there's two elements to that. One is when is the company that's looking to acquire the launch ready to commit to significant financial outlay to do so? Look, we could sign as many loose and non-financial transactional contracts for Neutron as you wish, but it's kind of not the way we operate. You know, any contract that you see with Rocket Lab, like it's a real contract and there's money down. We can press release some fluffy contracts, but that's not really our style or being real. You know, part of it comes down to is when the customer is willing to, you know, commit capital to secure it. Also, you know, as I mentioned before, is like who's going to actually be on the pad? I'm not too worried at the moment, you know, Cai von Rumohr, about that. I mean, we've got work ahead of us to deliver the vehicle and our customers have got work ahead of them to keep their constellations, you know, on track and on schedule. The one thing as an absolute fact is that launch is an ex. You know, especially around the time that Neutron comes to market as an you know absolute rarity. We can afford to be fussy and others have lots of aspirations and not so much execution history. We're very much of the opinion that we will execute and we'll watch our customers execute. The people that execute will come together and that will be that. Terrific. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Kristine Liwag with Morgan Stanley. You may proceed. Hi. Thanks. Maybe just one quick one, on the booster you covered, the helicopter back in May. Have there been any surprises at this point now that you've had some time to assess, the extent of refurbishment required? Thanks. Yeah. Kristine Liwag, I wouldn't say any surprises. I mean, we're very happy with the condition that it was, even though we dumped it in the water. You know, all of the areas that typically see the most amount of load and work, and the areas that we've been iterating on look very successful. You know, we have a battery program which is just about wrapped up, which will enable, you know, 10 recharges of the batteries, which is, you know, the largest single element that we were going to have to replace from the launch vehicle. That program is just wrapping up. It's all kind of coming together nicely. I think what was not so much surprising, but very very gratifying was that, you know, the first time we attempted to actually do this with a helicopter, with a brand new helicopter and, you know, a brand new process, we pulled it off. You know, rendezvousing in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with something that's been traveling at seven times the speed of sound on a ballistic trajectory and rendezvousing and doing all that, you know, very gratifying to see that all that analysis work and effort paid off. This is going to be really a viable system for us. That was a great point to reach. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Again, to ask a question, please press star one. There are no additional questions at this time. I will pass it back to the management team for closing remarks. Thanks very much. With that, thank you everyone for your interest in Rocket Lab and for those who participated in today's call. Adam and I will be speaking at these up-and-coming conferences and look forward to the opportunity to share more exciting news and updates at the RBC Capital Markets Global Industrials Conference in Vegas on the thirteenth of September, the Morgan Stanley Laguna Conference on September fourteenth, the ACG Aerospace & Defense Mid-Market Conference in Los Angeles, September the fifteenth, and the BofA Global Industrials Innovation Summit in Washington, D.C., on September twenty-third. Last but not least, we look forward to welcome you all to our invitation-only Investor Day and Neutron development update to be held on the twenty-third or twenty-first of September at the Intrepid Museum in New York City. At this event, I'll be joined by Adam and other members of our senior leadership team to host a series of presentations really focused on our company's progress since our de-SPAC in August 2021, as well as fulsome updates on the development of the Neutron launch vehicle. Thanks again, and we look forward to speaking with you again about the exciting progress that we've made in our business. Thank you. That concludes today's conference call. Thank you. You may now disconnect your line.