Main Engine Cut Off - T+111: SpaceX, the Established Launch Provider

Episode Date: February 21, 2019

A tale of politics, protests, and contracts tells the story of how SpaceX is in transition—and maybe has already transitioned—from a scrappy upstart to an established launch provider. This episode of Main Engine Cut Off is brought to you by 35 executive producers—Kris, Pat, Matt, Jorge, Brad, Ryan, Jamison, Nadim, Peter, Donald, Lee, Jasper, Chris, Warren, Bob, Russell, John, Moritz, Joel, Jan, David, Grant, Mike, David, Mints, Joonas, Robb, Tim Dodd the Everyday Astronaut, Frank, and six anonymous—and 219 other supporters on Patreon. California Space Mafia Needles the Air Force - Main Engine Cut Off Lawmakers: Air Force launch procurement strategy undermines SpaceX - SpaceNews.com SpaceX Protests Lucy Launch Contract - Main Engine Cut Off SpaceX protests NASA launch contract award - SpaceNews.com Air Force Awards EELV Phase-1A-6 Contracts - Main Engine Cut Off U.S. Department of Defense Contracts for February 19, 2019 Project Announcement: Evaluation of the U.S. Air Force's Certification of the SpaceX Falcon Launch Vehicle Family > Department of Defense Office of Inspector General Email your thoughts, comments, and questions to [e-mail] Follow @WeHaveMECO Listen to MECO Headlines Join the Off-Nominal Discord Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Spotify, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn or elsewhere Subscribe to the Main Engine Cut Off Newsletter Buy shirts and Rocket Socks from the Main Engine Cut Off Shop Support Main Engine Cut Off on Patreon Music by Max Justus

politics protests contracts we've got a juicy one here on main engine cut off today i am anthony colangelo and this is the story of how spacex is in transition right now from the scrappy upstart to the established launch provider. And maybe they're not even in transition at this point. Maybe they have reached that status point. But I think when we look back in the long view of history, years from now, when we're talking about the next, next generation of launch vehicles, we might look back at this, you know, four week long period, maybe even three-week-long

period as the time at which SpaceX has become the established launch provider in the industry and is starting to act like it. So we've got a couple of stories that have happened over the last couple of weeks that I want to bring together in this kind of storyline, because there were individual stories that we've talked about, either here or on the blog or on headlines, if you listen to that show over at patreon.com slash miko um but now that we've gotten to this point with a new story this week i think we really have a full storyline together so uh there's three stories that we're going to talk about here uh with maybe a little addendum to one of them a A couple of weeks back, we had some congressional members

that represent California send a letter to the Air Force, kind of needling them over the launch service agreements awards that happened. Those are development contracts that were awarded to Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, and Northrop Grumman. And this letter kind of pokes at them a bit as to why SpaceX wasn't selected and sort of complains that SpaceX is now disadvantaged in that contracting round. Then the second story that we had was SpaceX protesting a launch contract that was awarded to United Launch Alliance by the NASA Launch Services Program for

the Lucy mission. And then just this week, the Air Force announced six contracts awarded through the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program, which is soon to be renamed. Three launch contracts went to United Launch Alliance and three to SpaceX. This kind of story arc, I think, really paints a good picture of SpaceX becoming that established launch provider. We'll go chronologically here, and first we'll talk about the needling that the Air Force is receiving from congressional members. So this was a letter from Dianne Feinstein, who is a Democrat in the Senate from California, and Representative Ken Calvert, who is a Republican in the House. They wrote a letter together to the Air Force, specifically addressed to the Secretary of the Air Force, Heather Wilson.

And in it, they talk about the fact that SpaceX wasn't selected in that round of development contracts. So they are being put in a burdened position for the phase two of these launch procurements that the Air Force is working towards. So a quick reminder, refresher on how this works. The Air Force awarded those development contracts to Blue Origin for New Glenn, to United Launch Alliance for Vulcan, and to Northrop Grumman for Omega. Those development contracts will run for a handful of years. And at the end of it, there's a down select in it where only two providers will actually finish the development contracts out and get the full funding that they were awarded. And then beyond that, there is a phase of contracting for launch contracts that is separate from the development contracts.

So once we get to the launch contract side, there's going to be two providers picked to compete for that next phase of launches in the same way that SpaceX and United Launch Alliance are competing now for the awards we'll talk about later. In the next round, there will be two providers that will split the awards. Now, these could be two providers that got development contracts or anyone who meets the requirements. So SpaceX isn't cut off from the phase two launch contracts. They could definitely win entrance into that round of contracting. But these Congress members think that because they weren't given money in the development phase, that they're behind the eight ball, and that the Air Force is not necessarily being the most responsible by keeping them out of it. Now, I don't think that's true. And I think,

in general, this is really an unfounded letter. I don't think there's too much. I mean, I know there's a reason behind it because they have motivations, but I don't agree with the assessment that the Air Force is being irresponsible here. The Air Force right now has everything that they want from SpaceX. They have two launch vehicles, this Falcon launch vehicle family of Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, that can cover almost all of the missions the Air Force needs to acquire. The one spot that they don't have from SpaceX, the one thing that they can't fulfill is some of these payloads that are extra long, that don't fit inside the fairing on Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy. But other than that, Air Force is

very, very happy with what SpaceX can currently do, as we'll talk about later, with the current launch contracts. So when we get into that phase two round of launch contract procurement, what you're going to be looking for is they need a provider with an extra long fairing that can fit the larger payloads, larger in volume, not in mass, larger in volume, not in mass, that can't fit under a SpaceX fairing. Now, if SpaceX submitted to the launch development contracts here, if they submitted a proposal, a viable proposal, to lengthen their fairing, to do some work on Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy that gives it a longer fairing, then maybe the Air Force would have selected them for this round of funding.

But we don't know what they submitted. We don't know if that's true. And if that is, in fact, what they submitted, then these Congress members might have a point in that that would have been maybe not too big of an investment for the Air Force, and they would have further extended the capabilities of SpaceX. There's been a lot of talk over the years as to whether a longer fairing is even possible on the Falcon family of launch vehicles. I have not seen anything that says definitively one way or the other, but it seems like the smart money is on it's not technically possible. But either way, that would be the one thing that they could submit to the Air Force to get development money for. Otherwise, the Air Force doesn't need to develop any additional SpaceX capabilities.

And in that regard, the Air Force right now doesn't want to put themselves in the same situation that they were 10, 15 years ago, where they had a monopoly on these military launch contracts, where ULA was the only game in town and prices rose because of that and there wasn't any competition. The Air Force wants to develop a second launch provider to kind of counter SpaceX to have a healthy market

of two providers. So if they can give some additional funding to Blue Origin or the ULA new launch vehicle in Vulcan or Northrop Grumman to get in the game with Omega, they are incentivizing the entrant of a new launch provider. I think a lot of people out there see Blue Origin as the most optimistic version of that because they do have big intentions to sell that vehicle commercially on the market. ULA has sold one commercial launch in the last couple of years, and they've shown very little initiative to sell any commercial launches beyond that. So at least publicly, internally, I don't know what's going on. But Blue Origin has a backlog of 10 or 12 launches

on New Glenn, and nobody else is really selling commercial launches, especially not ULA and North of Grumman. So I think if you're the Air Force, you're making the smart decision to send some funding in the way of viable second players in the market away from SpaceX. They need a counterbalance to SpaceX in the next decade. And SpaceX, they are very happy with their offerings. So I think their money is better spent in other places. Now, I bring all this up. I'm kind of getting rambly on this topic in general, but I bring all this up to say that having your representatives in Congress write letters to different players in the industry and kind of politic in this way,

that is a move that we typically see of the old space players. We typically see this coming out of Alabama to defend the SLS program or defend ULA. We typically hear from Richard Shelby or Mo Brooks or players in the Gulf states that lobby in certain ways to get what they want for their constituents. We are seeing that here with SpaceX in California. There's an article, I think this was by Sandra Irwin over at Space News. And in it, she says that there's a there's a line in there that's kind of buried, but very important. She said, according to multiple sources, SpaceX launched a lobbying effort shortly after the LSA winners were announced to make the case to lawmakers that the decision unfairly tilted the playing field. So that's indicative of what I'm saying here.

This is a move that is made in typical politics fashion. And, you know, historically, I think we collectively, those that are interested in new space kind of movement, have been annoyed when that stuff has come out of Alabama or come out of, you know, Texas lobbying for certain Johnson Space Center concerns or wherever it came out of. We've typically been annoyed at these kind of things. And to me, this is just as annoying as when it comes from a ULA Congress representative. So this is very typical of this launch provider game. And Sandra Irwin has some sources that say it was sourced from SpaceX. So this isn't an incredibly huge story, but when you see this kind of political

maneuvering, this is indicative of, you know, the way that I've always talked about SpaceX in that they are the upstart now, but one day they will be the entrenched player trying to keep the new entrance out. And I think this is one of those moves, because when you look at, you know, who got development funding in the LSA awards, well, I just talked about it. Vulcan from United Launch Alliance is not really pushing to sell a lot on the commercial market. Northrop Grumman with Omega, I don't think they would have any commercial intentions with Omega. Maybe one or two things with a full stack service that I've talked about on previous episodes, but

not huge commercial contracts. And Blue Origin, on the other hand, has already sold double digits of launch contracts. They are in a double digit backlog right now for the early 2020s, when SpaceX is also vying for those contracts. And most recently, there was a contract to Blue Origin from Telesat that I talked about an episode or two ago. And that's one of those things that I'm sure SpaceX was pretty bummed to miss out on. So right now, Blue Origin is selling contracts that is impacting SpaceX's manifest. So when you look at who SpaceX is concerned about with these LSA awards, I think they're most concerned about Blue Origin getting half a billion dollars to develop New Glenn and to potentially challenge them in that

next round of EELV, of the launch contracts that will come in phase two. So this is a play from a player that is an established launch provider in the industry. And I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm not saying it's, you know, oh, here they go being really annoying on the politics front. This is what they should be doing. These are the plays they should be making because that's how this kind of, you know, elbows game works. You got to elbow your way into the crowd and you got to keep your position. You got to fight to keep your position. That's what we've seen from ULA for so many years. That's what we've seen from players in all sorts of industries that are that established player when a new entrant arrives on the scene. And that's the situation that SpaceX is in right now. Now, moving on to this launch protest from SpaceX, this is

slightly different. This is a little bit of a different story. But what happened here was a couple of weeks ago, the NASA Launch Services Program, which is a program within NASA to help science missions get their launch vehicles and acquire their launch vehicles. They awarded United Launch Alliance a launch contract for the Lucy mission. This is a mission to the Trojan asteroids of Jupiter. This would launch in, what was it, 2021, I think it was, with a backup launch window in 2022. The 2021 launch window is only 20 days long. So as part of the announcement, they awarded ULA the launch on an Atlas V for $148.3 million. And as part of it, they referenced the fact that ULA has always touted schedule certainty. So when they have that very limited window, a very complex trajectory, ULA was chosen for that. And that does make sense to me. Specifically,

when you look at these kind of science missions, they have a lot of history flying on Atlas V. They're probably very comfortable with integrating with an Atlas V, and there's a lot of knowledge built up there. So it's kind of the easy pick to go with the longstanding provider that has done these kind of missions before. Centaur Upper Stage is as reliable as anything that has ever been built. And it's very powerful, so it can do very accurate injections to high energy orbits. So it was a natural pick. But SpaceX has filed a protest because they said that they submitted a bid for this launch and they can do it with significantly less cost and as much schedule certainty and all the other requirements that are there in the contract they can do it with

as good as uh you know fit as ula can so in response to that nasa has issued a stop work order on the launch contract portion of the lucy mission here. And they're going to investigate this until May 22nd is when they have to render a decision. And then beyond that, we'll see what happens, whether they have to recompete this contract or renegotiate the contract or provide explanation for why ULA was picked rightly. We'll see what happens in May. But when you look at this strategically, this is precisely the right moment for spacex to do this sort of thing uh as i said these are the typical launches that ula gets they are the easy choice and spacex is still in the process of elbowing their way in to those science missions but you

know last year the end of last year uh spacex received their category 3 certification from the nasa launch services program which means that they can carry the highest priority science missions. The only thing they're not yet capable of carrying is any missions that have nuclear power as their source. So something like Mars Curiosity Rover, Mars 2020, anything that has one of those RTGs on it, SpaceX is not yet certified. And that's a whole other thing that is kind of murky to how you get certified for that. But a lot of it is based around being able to protect the payload in any anomalies so that we don't radiate the ocean. So that's a separate thing. But they are now certified to carry the most important science missions from NASA. At the same time, SpaceX is on a hell of a roll. They've got an incredible string of launches

off successfully with like, you successfully with 100% mission success since Amos 6 incident a couple years back. So they are on an amazing roll. And most importantly, I think, when you look at the last two years or so, ULA has had quite a lot of scrubs and technical issues that have led to some long delays for launches, and SpaceX has had significantly less of those. And it's kind of a funny turn of events, because in the early days, ScrubX was kind of the slam that people would apply to SpaceX. They would call them ScrubX because they had a tendency to scrub so many launches. Recently, that's kind of flipped.

ULA has had a lot of these small technical issues that have delayed launches for sometimes days at a time, in this most recent case of the Delta IV Heavy, weeks at a time. And it's been a significant uptick in these issues. And that could be attributed to the layoffs that ULA has had or some shifting workforce or people leaving to go other places. I don't know exactly what the root cause of that is. But it has been a notable uptick in these technical issues for ULA. So right now, SpaceX has all of that going for them. When they're going to protest a launch like this, they can point to their Category 3 certification, their track record of late, and how many scrubs they've had versus ULA has had. They are set up for a really good protest

here. And it sucks for the Lucy mission, the people working on the Lucy mission to be kind of at the crosshairs of this, but this is part of what, you know, being a government program is about. You do have to deal with this stuff from time to time. And I think this is just a really strong decision from SpaceX to go after this one in particular, because it could have big impacts for science missions in the next five, 10 years from here. And I think they're set up really well to actually have this decision overturned. And that would be really interesting if that is what happens. I kind of look at this as the way that when you have a trademark, you have to aggressively pursue people that are

infringing that, or else you're kind of putting yourself in a situation when your trademark isn't really that valued anymore or that valid. You've got to stand up in these situations if you're SpaceX and say, no, no, no, we can do this for cheaper and we can do it as good as they can, and we require you to look into this some more. I think that's the right decision for them. So again, a little bit of politicking, but this is what an established player does. All right, the big story though is these new contracts from the Air Force for six launches. So we want to get into that. Before we do, I need to say a huge thank you to everyone who supports Main Engine Cutoff over at patreon.com

slash Miko. There are 254 of you over there supporting this show, and I'm so thankful for your support. This episode was produced by 35 executive producers. Chris, Pat, Matt, George, Brad, Ryan, Jameson, Nadeem, Peter, Donald, Lee, Jasper, Chris, Warren, Bob, Russell, John, Moritz, Joel, Jan, David, Grant, Mike, David, Mintz, Eunice, Rob, Tim Dodd, The Everyday Astronaut, Frank, and six anonymous executive Mike, David, Mintz, Eunice, Rob, Tim Dodd, The Everyday Astronaut, Frank, and six anonymous executive producers. Thank you so much for making this episode possible. This is an entirely listener-supported show. I don't do any advertising. I don't do any backroom deals with anybody for distribution. This is supported by you. So if you are getting

some value out of this, send a little back my way. Head over to patreon.com slash Miko and sign up there. If you are a $3 a month or more member, you get access to Miko headlines every weekend. I do a little show running through the headlines of the week. Great way to stay up on Space News. And if you're a $5 member, you get access to the off nominal Discord, which is my favorite community on the internet right now. We've got a great group of people in there talking about space every day. And it's a really fun place to hang out. So go over to patreon.com slash Miko if you want to help support the show and get access to some of that stuff.

And for now, thank you so much for your support. All right, so these launch contracts are big, big news from the Air Force. These are six launches that are in the 2021 to 2022 timeframe, except for one mission that is currently just an option, which we'll talk about in a sec. So the headline news here is that United Launch Alliance was awarded $441 million for three launches. Those are the launches of Silent Barker, the SIBRS-G05 and SIBRS-G06 missions. That is the space-based infrared system missile warning satellites. Cibber's G06 currently is just an option, as I said, so that's not actually funded yet. The funding is in here, but it will be allocated later if that launch does happen. Right now, G05 is the only launch that is slated to happen in 2021 or 2022, and G06 will be decided upon later, but it was awarded to

ULA if they do take that option. On the SpaceX side of things, they've been awarded three missions for a total of $297 million. This is NROLE 87, NROLE 85, and Air Force Space Command 44 missions. Two NRO missions, and one Air Force Space Command mission. Now, out of this, we can make some price assumptions that I think are interesting to note and just kind of one of those things that you want to keep up on so that you have a basis for what these prices are as you look at launch contracts like this. So for ULA, the Sibbers G05 and Sibbers G06 flights are likely on Atlas V 411s. The first, just for reference, ULA has flown four space-based infrared system satellites already,

Sibbers G0-1, 2, 3, and 4. The first three of those were on an Atlas V 401, but with the fourth flight last year, the Air Force took the option of using a 411 for an improved performance to inject it higher into orbit than the first three flights did, and I expect they'll do the same here. So we can assume that the Sibbers G05 and G06 flights are on an Atlas V for 11. As I said, that G06 is an option. So those funds are not yet allocated. So if we do some math with the numbers given, that flight is worth $133 million. So if we assume that GEO-5 and 6 are the same at $133 million, then Silent Barker is about $175 million, likely flying on an Atlas V 541 or 551. That is a five meter fairing with

four or five solid rocket boosters. That mission is a direct to GEO mission. So that's typical of Atlas V. They typically fly in 541 or 551 for these bigger satellites going to GEO. And $175 million kind of makes sense if you consider a 411 plus a couple of solid rocket boosters. $133 million plus a couple of solid rocket boosters brings you to $175. So there's a range for Atlas V pricing. On the SpaceX side, the best bet we can make is that Air Force Space Command 44 is a Falcon Heavy flight. Interestingly, in SpaceX's statement, they didn't list that as part of the Falcon Heavy manifest, but I kind of chalked that up to copy and pasting some copy that hasn't yet been updated, and not necessarily an indication that it won't be flying on Falcon Heavy.

Because previously there was some statements that Falcon Heavy would be needed for that mission. So let's assume that it is. At that point, the two NRO missions are Falcon 9s. And based on recent contracts for government missions, we can assume about $90 million for those flights, which leaves the Falcon Heavy flight at about $117. So there's our prices for reference. Falcon 9's at $90 million, Falcon Heavy at $117, Atlas 5 411 for $133 million, and Atlas 5 541 for $175 million. As I said, we can make assumptions around those prices. And I think it's just one of those things that I like to keep in touch with so that when we're talking about launch contracts, we have a general sense for what the cost of these things are. And when you look at that, it is interesting to know that Falcon Heavy for a direct-to-geo flight like Air Force Space

Command 44 is, that beats ULA with a direct-to-geo flight by about $60 million. So we have a significant margin there for SpaceX on these flights, as we assumed, but this is the first time we really have some head-to-head comparisons for Falcon Heavy flights in this way. And I find that, you know, let's keep note of that. Now, in general, this round of contracting is not surprising, and that's the best news possible if you're SpaceX. For the Sibbers GeoFlights, as I said, four of those have flown on Atlas 5 already. So five and six make sense to fly on Atlas 5. You can reuse some integration hardware, reuse some of that knowledge built up, some of the systems

knowledge built up there in the same way that Lucy was. This is kind of the easy pick, and I think it makes sense, especially when you consider that the Air Force, with the EELV program, wants to maintain two launch providers. So they typically like to split these launches as evenly as possible to give both launch providers significant business. So when you're looking at these flights, I think it makes sense to give these Sibbers Geoflights to Atlas V. On the SpaceX side of things, two NRO flights on Falcon 9 is right up their alley. They've done an NRO mission already. They've done the Air Force mission with the X-37B in Falcon 9 formation. So this makes a lot of sense to give those two NRO flights to SpaceX in the same way that it makes giving Sibber's Geo flights to Atlas V. The Falcon Heavy one is where it gets really interesting. This is a really,

really nice award for SpaceX. They were awarded a Falcon Heavy flight for Air Force Space Command 52 a couple of months back. Now they've got number 44 on Falcon Heavy. So to see the confidence there in the Air Force and Falcon Heavy, that's a really good sign for SpaceX. Falcon Heavy's manifest is growing. And over half of it, I believe, or near half of it, is Air Force missions. So that is a huge, huge validation for Falcon Heavy, especially at the price here. I have to believe the Air Force is quite happy to get a direct-to-geo flight like this for $117 million. That is a major win for Falcon Heavy. And I think, you know, when we're looking at this group of contracts, maybe even more impactful than winning that Air

Force Space Command 52 mission was a couple of months back. That one leftover, the Silent Barker mission, again, the Air Force likes to split these. It's a bigger payload. It might even be, we don't really know what it is. It's super classified. That's one that we'll never hear anything about. It might even be something that doesn't fit in Falcon fairings. But either way, I think, you know, tossing that ULA's way is expected in this case. If you're giving the NRO flights and an Air Force Space Command flight to SpaceX, you're going to toss the other one ULA's way especially if it's something that Atlas 5 needs a long faring for so all in all this round makes a lot of sense and I think that's part of the thing that gives me so much confidence in SpaceX being an established provider because now

they're winning these kind of missions and we're like oh yeah cool that's they won that one cool and that's such a mindset switch when a couple of years back, they were seen as an unreliable launch provider, still an upstart. They weren't mature enough to fly these kinds of missions. But now they get awarded three Air Force missions like this and we all go, yeah, cool.

And that's a big sign for them. That's something that I don't think we should overlook because I think this really seals the deal that SpaceX is entering that established player market and they are now going to be the ones playing defense against new entrants. Now on that note, I wanted to bring up one little other sub story here that might even be, this is going to take a couple of weeks to come together, but I think within the DoD right now, we might have some hot drama. I think we've got some hot drama in the DOD right now, we might have some hot drama. I think we've got some hot drama in the DOD because last week, the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General announced that they were going to begin an evaluation of

the U.S. Air Force's certification of the Falcon launch vehicle family. Not a lot of other info about this, but there's been a ton of talk about it. So there's this one snippet from the Air Force release on this, and I'm going to read it to you here. We plan to begin the subject evaluation in February 2019. Our objective is to determine whether the U.S. Air Force complied with the Launch Services New Entrance Certification Guide when certifying the launch system design for the evolved expendable launch vehicle class SpaceX Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. expendable launch vehicle class SpaceX Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. Now, I don't think this story is something worth getting super worked up about yet.

I think it could be, but it's not yet. And this was mostly reported as the DOD Office of Inspector General is investigating SpaceX. That is not the case. They are looking into the U.S. Air Force's certification for new entrants, the Launch Services New Entrance Certification Guide. That is the thing that they followed to certify SpaceX for these kind of launches. And presumably right now, they're going to be using that for new entrants that come into the market, which there are a ton of, you know, both in these large vehicles, but also small vehicles as well. So this is something that is only getting more important. So I think if you are the Office of Inspector General, right now is the right time to look into that, to kind of review what those certification guides are, how they're implemented, if they make sense, if they were followed correctly, because we're probably going to

be using that a lot in the next couple of years. Now related to this, I heard from a couple of people that there was, you know, within the DOD, there was a conversation about, should we delay the announcement of the contracts that I just talked about? Should we delay that announcement because of this investigation? And the call was made to go ahead and announce this the week after the inspector general announced that they'll be looking into certification for launch vehicles that you just awarded $297 million worth of contracts to. So there's potentially some hot drama internally in the DoD right now, where there's a couple of factions that aren't too happy with each other. And again, I don't think this is a story worth getting too worked up about yet,

but I do think it's something to keep in mind and keep an eye on, especially as Falcon wins more contracts. So let's see what the outcome of this investigation is. It should be a couple of weeks, a couple of months, and we'll see what comes out of that investigation. But the timing of that investigation announcement and then someone within the DoD saying, nope, we're going to go ahead and announce these launch contracts, that right there is some interesting hot drama for me, and I'm going to keep an eye on that storyline. So that is it. That is the tale of, what did I say at the front? Politics and protests and launch contracts. That is the tale of those things and how SpaceX has become an established launch provider in the industry. And I think, I guess I'm calling my shot here. Let's look

back at this show in a couple of years and see if I was right, if this was the moment when they transitioned to that established player in the industry. But for now, that is it for this week. Thank you so much for listening. Head over to patreon.com slash Miko if you want to help support the show. And as always, email me anthonyatmanagingcutoff.com. We've got a Q&A episode coming up next week. So if you've got questions you want me to take on, email me, anthonyatmanagingcutoff.com. We've got a Q&A episode coming up next week. So if you've got questions you want me to take on, email them in or on Twitter at wehavemiko. But for now, thank you so much for listening,

and I will talk to you next week. Bye.