Stations that can hold up to 30 metric tons of fuel

amazing. Mm.

to the moon, right? So they just carry cargo instead. And it's such a long ride and it's very expensive. And it's very like they get so much value from being able to refill. So that's how we think we'll be part of that whole infrastructure as well, because we are not just looking into refueling in high-end like in geo, just orbital transport vehicles or other spacecraft. So we are also looking into build this whole network where spacecraft can refill on the way to moon as well as Mars eventually.

In that picture, which one exhausted most?

I think both excites me because I feel like Moon might be short-term goal. I'm not talking about short-term in the sense like next year, but it could happen within the next five to 10 years and then Mars could be more long-term. But I think both excites us because we are going to be such a big enabler for all these missions and

Yeah.

Like it's so exciting to even think, okay, when we have missions that's going to moon and Mars, they're going to plan those missions around being able to refuel in space. And because we are stationary and we can store up to multiple metric tons of fuel, right now our technology can handle up to 30 metric tons of fuel and that'll increase in the future. So that's why we think we can enable so much of these missions and imagine you build a company and these really amazing multi-planter emissions will revolve, will be planned around what you can provide to them.

That's why I find it like fascinating what you're working on. Can you also give us a little bit of context around perhaps what are we comparing versus what? Without Spatium today, this is how it goes with Spatium as of, I don't know, two years onwards or three years onwards. and this is going to be the value they are going to be receiving. Perhaps you can just compare in terms of percentage or in terms of fake figures just to give an idea.