The New Horizons Summit, held at Lendlease in Barangaroo, Sydney on Friday was an inspiring day, showcasing Australian and international presenters across the spectrum of space technology and industry activities. Speakers included Jennifer Edmunson, Project Manager of the Moon to Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technology (MMPACT) project with NASA and, a stellar 2:30am (CET) presentation from Austrian-based Niklas Hedman, Acting Director with the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.
The volunteer organising team from the National Space Society of Australia set their purpose to expose attendees to a potentially new horizon; with this year’s being the painting of a supply chain that can create a sustainable presence on the Moon and Mars. The aim was to ensure that those who attend will leave with not only an awareness of the potential reality but with a knowledge of their position within the supply chain that would be needed to turn this into a reality. Kudos to the team for achieving this objective.
The format of the day, which adhered to a strict and generally brutal time schedule, was broken down across four key session themes. These included transport infrastructure, construction and extraction, systems integration and sustainability, and replication. Hearing from each presenter for an allocated 12 minutes meant a sufficient overview was gleaned from each speaker, which then culminated in an informative collective panel session.
Here is a captured takeaway from those sessions (and edited for readability).
SESSION 1 – TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
KPIs, space, Australia, customers, supply chain, real, starting, risk, infrastructure, launch, moving, government, people, capital, cost, grants, investment, market, industry, shift
- Ryan Nagle, CSCO Datum Source (MODERATOR)
- Troy McCann, Executive Director, Nebula
- Christian Maender, Director, AXIOM
- Rajat Kulshrestha, CEO, Space Machines Company
- James Bultitude, CTO Orbit Fab
- James Gilmour, Director, Gilmour Space Technologies
Focused on space infrastructure. What types of metrics or a style of a key performance indicator do you think gives a good signal on the health of the space industry?
I think the first one is real customers. Not just necessarily government contracts or especially not grants but actual customers.
I go back to the model that says we need a robust infrastructure layer and LEO, to support this kind of exploration. And this robust infrastructure doesn’t exist unless there are reasons to be there. So, it’s really about diversification and economic reasons to be there. And to me, measuring the different use cases that are actually developing to go to space is a great indicator for growth. But there’s a difference between who wants to go and how we can afford to go and whether you can close the business case. And so, you’ve got to look at both the diversification of people who have real applications for microgravity or for space and separate, how many business case-closes is it? And as those numbers start to reach the same level on the curve, then you’ve been more and more successful.
I think it’s about the shift from supply-side market to the demand side. You know, there are a number of variables to it. It’s number of customers, things to orbit launch cadence, but I think at the moment, there’s a very over-heavy over–indexing on the supply side, which is great. Because that’s what happens with most markets. But I think an indication to start moving towards more demand side is where you start to see real growth because focusing on one variable or the other is not going to give you a good idea. Just because there’s a large number of launches, does not mean that it’s starting to grow. I think it’s about a value by a number of variables.
So, we think about this a bunch because it opens up we’d like to say that we have an economy that includes space but is on the ground, and we want an in-space economy. Which is different in that goods and services need to be exchanged in space and need to emerge in space for use in space. And we’re starting to see the first of those things. But it’s still very centered around every business model that generates revenue for people living on the ground. And so there’s a bit of work we think long term, and that’s how we would measure success.
A good question. A couple of things. I think investment both from a venture capital side but also at a federal and state and even local level. I think when my brother and I started a long time ago, there was little or no venture capital in investment in Australia. It took, I’d say boldness, of Blackbird ventures to actually see that there was a shift in the space landscape, both domestically and abroad.
I think some other key indicators are the amount of small and medium enterprises that have started. I think when we started, there was a small handful. And now I think there’s, you’re in a sense of the 100, 200 small and medium enterprises operating domestically in the space domain. And for me, I would like to see a shift in the number of talented individuals studying space technology in Australia. That’s what I think would shift and move the needle.
When I think about KPIs, they always make me cringe a little bit. Because then I’m going to be held accountable to those KPIs and increasingly, what are some of the most efficient sort of capital allocations that governments or any sort of capital allocator could put in place that would make you feel more comfortable being held accountable to the metrics that you just signed up?
I think, moving away, at least locally, starting to move away from the grants to more contracts, because that allows us to directly address that demand side, so being part of the supply chain allows us to go build something and launch something. And so I think, from my perspective, from institutional governments moving towards more the capability that we’re starting to build.
I’ll say that the US is a good model here. You don’t have to invent how to allocate money in a new way. In particular the AFRL and the work that they do around the AFWERX, which is their application of what they call Small Business Innovation Research grants. This is structured so the first phase is defining your market, figure out what you’re going to build and prove it can work. The second phase is really prove it works. And then the third phase is not here’s more money to scale it, it’s find a customer and that customer can be government but they need to bring money. And AFWERX becomes a contracting mechanism that makes it easier for you to get that customer’s money into a contract form that you can do work as a small business. So, taking those kinds of ideas from elsewhere and implementing them in Australia could be very powerful.
Well, speaking from experience, it tends to be centered around headcount. Politicians tend to have the factors of jobs and growth. I don’t see that changing. That will continue to be a requirement with any grant or co-investment at a federal or state level. I’d like to see a shift in the government being a customer or buyer of services from small to medium-large enterprises. And then I would like to see more contractual arrangements for large bidding for Australian into industry content to be measured, rather than what I’ve seen of late.
From the US we’re obviously spoiled from a capital perspective, both from as an infrastructure provider but what I really like to see is a greater diversification and investment in the companies that want to use space as opposed to the ones that want to get them to space or sustainable in space. And maybe that sounds weird for a guy that’s still trying to raise capital. But really, I don’t need capital as much as I want to see customers. And so that’s what we all really need.
What I like to see and what I am seeing, at least an uptick in trending is risk tolerance growth, at least in the US markets on going after somebody space applications and it takes people like this on the stage to demonstrate that there’s access to space that hasn’t been there before. So it makes those investments realistic.
I can’t speak intelligently within Australia, but I can echo from what the Gilmour team says, it’s just it seems that it would Australia could really benefit from government infusion of dollars that really foster a growth of the LEO commercial space marketplace here in Australia. There are other countries that are doing it. I think it’s a real race, I mean, to really say who’s going to leverage and take advantage of the opportunities that space is going to provide. And so, I would love to see more government funding go into these applications, whether it’s on the infrastructure side or on the use case side, but that said, I think there’s plenty of VC out there, whether it’s domestic or international. But the governments that really put an effort into developing the economies in Low Earth Orbit, and especially to start in ultimately lunar and beyond, are going to be the ones that really reap the benefit of the economic benefit terrestrially that supports all that infrastructure.
It’s something I’ve spoken about for years, especially in Australia, where we’re trying to grow an entirely new set of space supply chains. And this is something that is happening all around the world as well, because the way that we’re doing space, as you’ve just heard of here, it’s entirely different today, than it was a few years ago. But a part of the challenge that we have, we have to work out how do we de-risk every single part of that supply chain before if you’re developing watch, for example, the end customers down the supply chain are going to be farmers that are looking for data that comes from the satellites that were launched, etcetera.
So, we need to do more to how to be less risk-averse, especially in Australia. If you’re saying that in the USA, they have an issue with risk then I don’t even know where we fall on that scale. But we definitely need more. We do need more capital from government as well. It’s great, you know, the amounts of money that it’s increasing in Australia. I hope that we see less of them. If you know that you’ll get here. I don’t like the idea of grants at all. I like the idea of contracts and customers over the top of that. So, I hope we see less grants and more real contracts. And I hope that we see more risk-takers and I hope that we see what people are reaching out to people that care and have been systems and they’re really thinking about how we do de-risk the technology that we’re developing and not say, I’m going to solve it trying to solve this scientific problem, and I’ll talk to a potential customer in five years’ time. Start with talking to a customer today. Then develop your technology to suit the solution. That they want. And that must work all throughout the supply chain. And so, we need better use of infrastructure to help us do the testing and development and you’re getting onto the space station too if you’re doing microgravity research. These are things we need to work out how we deal with each of the steps of this supply chain, using a lot of the tools that we have available source but they’re just very fragmented now.
If I can just quickly bring it back to the KPIs question, as we sort of went off track a bit. I think that we need to embrace KPIs a lot more, especially if you’re just looking for a customer not even necessarily just government contracts or government grants. If you’re developing a new capability, talk to your potential customers say well look, let’s do some sort of demonstration and here are the KPIs. What are your KPIs that you need from us? Because then it starts to de risk and for that, you know, if you don’t hit it, that’s fine. But if you do hit it, then you can say well, let’s lock you in for a bigger audit. That helps investors understand that okay, there’s real significant customers here, not just a one off your entire kicking kind of customer. And that’s how we can start to build out those supply chains.
It seems as if the entire industry is on the heels of the NASA administrator speaking a couple of days ago, when he said that the cost-plus contracts were like a plague on NASA for the last few decades. What’s your reaction to that? Because when we were buying things at SpaceX, Elon nicely told me to go remind the suppliers that we’re not a cost-plus contract, we’re a firm fixed price launch company. And now that they’re going that way, what’s your reaction to that? Does it add a little bit more risk?
Me personally, I love it. Of course, it increases risk. That’s what we should be doing it. We, you know, we don’t want to rent-seekers, you know, the disabled, I’m in this position and suddenly, I can just keep on charging more and more. We need to create a little bit more of the market to work or what is the value that that group is actually providing in the supply chain so that we don’t get any stagnation like what we saw before the last decade or so.
I support it too. But I mean as a simply because nothing down cost plus waters down the opportunity to deliver on KPIs and at the end of the day you You’re, you’re expected to deliver but the cost-plus world you can make excuses that ultimately lead you to ask for more. And from a resource’s perspective, if we’re ever going to put become multiple multi-planetary species with the amount of capital it’s going to take to go invest in that we can’t afford to. We can’t afford to waste some money as a precious resource. And so, from that regard, creating a common competitive environment, making sure that people play around with it deliver. That’s what I think. So.
Going back to the KPI question, this is one of those variables where, you know if it’s if it becomes a demand-centric market, you’re going to get value-based pricing. So, moving from cost to fixed to value, and you see that in other industries where slowly the transition happens. At the end of the day, you want the customer go and telling you I’m willing to pay more for that because it’s high value to me. So, my view is that it’s a solid step toward moving that future.
Cost-plus doesn’t just give an avenue for increasing cost, it encourages it. Like it actively makes people underbid. Knowing that they can increase the cost. We all know this. We all know that everyone’s guilty on it, it has to go. And the only way for it to go is for companies to make the standard say we want to do firm fixed price and that’s been happening for long enough now that the internet so it’s great news.
Great news. I think that that’s one of the reasons why there’s innovative companies today like SpaceX, you know, competing for business that was traditionally to these types of arrangements that didn’t lead to the best idea wins or efficiency or effectiveness. So that’s what we’re doing now with regards to the next phase of the contracting, is fixed price. So, both parties take risks. We’ve got to make sure that you know our requirements are clear and well defined, and they know exactly what they’re looking to do and you’re fully 100% support. Cool.
But it really does put responsibility back on the government to know very clearly what they want. They define the opportunity because to change requirements on companies in a firm fixed price and it happens. Scope creep my basis. But the point is the scope creep really can’t be tolerated in a firm, fixed–price environment. So, from that perspective, if you’re going to go that way, you need to understand that any scope change results in a change in the cost of it to deliver the service. And so, in that regard, from an efficiency perspective, you know, to go to fixed price governance really got to know what they want. And they got to say this is what we bought and follow through.
But there are avenues if you get 90% of the way through a project and you’re over cost with firm fixed price to still closing the project out, right? You can go to the capital markets and say, look, how much work is done, this small investment from you and a good deal gets it over the line. And that really lets the market then solve the problems in the way we do with the rest of the economy.
SESSION 2 – CONSTRUCTION AND EXTRACTION
space, working, power, satellites, hardware, ITAR, unlimited budget, regulation, moon, companies, materials, launch, panel, feedstock, exciting, ice, constraints, first few missions, involved, bio
- Emi Clancy, Senior Manager, Communications and Marketing, Satellite and Space Systems, Optus (MODERATOR)
- Michael Morris, Architect & Co-Founder, SEArch+
- David Goodloe, Advanced Concepts Team, Branch Technology
- Jeremy Aubert, Brand & Media Strategist, Fleet Space Technologies
- Leanne Cunnold, Director & COO, AROSE
- James Trevorrow, Arup Space Task Force Leader, Arup
- Jake Thompson, Head of Innovation, Rolls Royce
If budget was no limit, what do you think is the next critical piece of research to reach a sustainable Lunar and Mars environment?
Well, I can speak from our experience. I’m not an expert in any of the other things that you’ve heard about today. So, I’ll limit myself to what I say here. But for us, it would be to begin prototyping hardware to produce the Next Generation materials that we expect to use as our feedstocks. That’s why it was such a unique and interesting outcome that we were able to print with that commercially available biopolymer, the bio-produced polymer and so exciting to see, because it is unexpected that variable materials work with a process that’s tailored for terrestrial construction right now. So, that is not going to always be the right material for every application on the lunar surface. So, I would say for us, at least, it’s the hardware that’s going to be needed to tailor and match the feedstock material that we’re expecting to use.
I’ll give a parochial answer for nuclear power. I’d like to see accelerated timescales to test a reactor and put it on the surface of the moon. So, the Artemis program does have sufficient surface power in the program. But it’s the end of this decade. After you know, humans have gotten there and spent the first few missions that are powered by solar power. We think you know, what, if project was no option, no risk constraint, we could accelerate that you could do it in parallel. And I go back to how I started my presentation, the more power we’ve got on service, and the more we can do so we can recharge a whole fleet of drones, we can do some more science. We could put a reactor on the Dark Side of the Moon and power a telescope for Deep Space Observation. The more power we can do, the more we can do so.
I think one of the things that’s a struggle with colonizing the moon and having presence there is so much we still don’t know. So, if budget was no issue. There are so many great ideas out there. That engineers and researchers have so many untested techniques that they would love to be able to just throw some hardware out there and start getting into it. When you think about companies that innovate and move quickly. They’re not afraid to fail, but in space when you’re in space, failure isn’t really quite an option. You can’t waste all that money sending something up there for only knocked work. So, if you had unlimited budget, you could take a lot more risks, and you could learn a lot more quickly. So, I think that would be the thing that would be exciting about having more ability to undertake work and to test things. When right now we have to test it all from Earth, get it right from here, and then hope that it applies across. I think that would be something exciting. And I think that as launch costs do come down, we’re going to see a new way of working in space, which we already see with the small satellite industry, where you no longer have these multibillion-dollar satellites you can really be flexible and design and learn and launch and it’s not so prohibitive that you’re prevented from doing that. I think that speed of innovation and being not so afraid to fail.
When the panel was talking before about the thing that’s a big part of it, honestly, is about sort of, you know, the inspirational parts and getting more people involved in the whole market. Really, that really is quite important. Thank you now that reducing payloads so how do we do that? Or we need more players. And we need to invest more money, but also, as per the first panel. We need that demand side. You look at VCs, they want returns, but the stakes are high up there, you know with hardware in space, right? So, it’s going to take longer to build those things that percentage is from Elon Musk about hardware manufacturing is hard. It’s not like a SaaS where you can get out there capture market and do a big exit. It’s not like that at all. Somehow where the sustainability angle is, get more VC involved in hardware in space, and sort of involve more people from different sectors in the sector itself.
I think that the idea of collaborating across the globe on having a collective you know, space effort, again, would be a kind of go I think that the forums like this that bring us all together and kind of synergy of what’s happening in the earth to get to space is an important first step.
So, I think that more collaboration more bringing together some of these brighter minds like this biopolymer that these guys are starting to work with. I think this is the key not only to bringing minds together for space, it’s also to bring them together for Earth. So, this is kind of materials that like eventually, we should be able to eat our buildings, you know, chicken to grow them and eat them. And we should be able to do the same thing in space. So, one could imagine that that whole plant-based bio human bio becomes one and then we don’t really destroy the resources that we have here. But in our Mars project, we drew part of the power from the Martian atmosphere, which is a by-product of trading the hydrogen fuel. So, I think that like that kind of particle level, elementary level particle physics is I think, you know, part of what we’re going to be looking at, that’s really interesting. So, any research that goes into that, I think, is where we should be spending the money.
Yeah, I think really similar to what other people have said is that, you know, what are the basics that we need to do and then put the money into fueling that growth? So, you know, rovers can’t be that successful, if you had a swarm, without having power, but then if you had power there, then we could have a lot more that easily. So, what are those key interdependencies that you could fund fail fast and then push the boundary for everyone? This is just one recheck.
In your experience, where have you found yourself pushing up against constraints due to space law and regulation, or lack thereof?
I don’t know. I mean, we’re getting an art group we’re getting more and more specifically involved with NASA and sort of direct design and so it was when we first entered it was kind of an open territory that, you know, we proposed Ice House as our first project. And then we won the competition, beating Foster and, and the European Space Agency, so we’re like little David beating these giant firms and established agencies. But the next competition they disallowed ice, it was to innovative, so that was our first experience of blowback, that you got zero points for ice and we knew that ice and water are the best radiation shields. It seemed to make sense because Mars great abundance of ice. So that was our first little bit of like, okay, you can’t be that innovative.
I don’t want to plug Arup too hard but I suppose we haven’t had any thus far. One big one is we’re working on in the US is helping design those codes and standards for the Moon and Mars and that’s really exciting. I think this network, we’ve all got similar agendas and intents and a lot of people are quite collaborative. And even on the IP side, on the styles we’re working with, it’s been a very open discussion. So, to be honest, we haven’t really found any thus far but we want to be involved in creating them.
Fleet Space is a satellite communications company, and we are launching our own satellites and it’s more of a physics problem than US law and regulation problem. But the regulatory environment for spectrum allocation is incredibly complex and a difficult area to operate in. And there’s a lot of companies that have gobbled up quite a lot of the available spectrum and to gain access to the right, to use your equipment. You know, we could launch satellites with incredible capability but if we don’t have the right permissions, then we’re hamstrung. We can’t really use that. So, it can be a challenge for companies that are startups and are growing and expanding, that they need to play on that same field and can potentially be held back. So, I don’t think there’s a way around it because there is only so much spectrum. But it’s a challenge that every space company that is looking to communicate from the earth to Low Earth Orbit and back is going to face and it’s a big challenge.
Yeah, that’s a very real example we’re working through right now, which is ITAR. Working with innovation is a lot of paperwork. And I get it. Control of space technology and nuclear technology and put those together. I really do understand the control aspect. But the ITAR regulations kind of fly in the face of the international cooperation that Artemis is set up for but will ultimately lead to its success. So, we still, I think, need to find the sweet spot, especially working with the US on ITAR regulations.
SESSION 3 – SYSTEMS INTEGRATION
answer, intellectual capital, NASA, skyscraper, challenges, systems, new technologies, robots, bits, question, systems integration, software, built, proven, real world examples, cosmic rays, problems, defense
- Imelda Alexopoulos, Partner, PwC (MODERATOR)
- Alex Snelson, Azure Mission Partnerships Lead, Microsoft
- Van Wagner, Senior Mechanical Engineer, Lunar Outpost
- Matthias Seifert, Lead of ISS Columbas Program, Airbus
- Mark Micire, Head of Robotics, Woodside
- Rob Joyce, CTO Oceania, Nokia
As the experts in your field, what do you think are the challenges others think are difficult, but you know, are easy and thinking from a systems integration perspective? So that’s the first part of the question. And on the flip side, what are the problems that are really challenging to solve?
Yeah, I think the first thing that we’ve realized is that the signal is pretty bad. And so normally we design systems to go through glass walls, between skyscrapers, etc. So, there’s no trees or anything like that was really a complication. So that’s great. That said, there’s not much reflection either. So, if the rover did go into a crater, we can’t guarantee, for example that a skyscraper across the road from the project that we bounce the signal off, so on the one hand, replications are easy but indirect propagation is proving hard. So that’s two answers. The other part was what we didn’t realize was the radiation and the cosmic rays and flip the bits in the EPC. So, all of a sudden, where software is pretty stable, and we don’t need to do much. Parity checking in software on Earth, on the moon is totally different. We need to be more robust and we need to be aware to be able to correct these bits if they occur, which is to us.
I do. Awesome. And your colleagues. I guess one of the challenges that Microsoft is working on as I talked about is the connectivity piece, and how you do that at the edge but also sometimes disconnected. You can’t always have an internet connection or a satellite connection. So, the key is not just being able to connect because we’ve proven that we do that for defense and intelligence scenarios today. But how you do that, to enable AI processing at scale. So, the amount of compute power we need, at scale to do the volume of AI processing or the amount of data that’s been generated by all the space-based assets, so we have not practiced that. Yeah. But you know, who the likes of HPE and others we’re working on it. It’s definitely a challenge.
How do we design for successful integration now, but allow for enough flexibility for new technologies in the future?
Quick stab at it, I think kind of from a mechanical engineering perspective is a really good way to go about that. And also, a good way to kind of keep costs down in the immediate is to make a concerted effort to use COTS components. We have a lot of interfaces that have been defined already. And so, if we can kind of design systems around those interfaces that have been established, that’ll make it easier in the future to implement kind of new technologies that are built on this architecture.
And I’ll throw in kind of the site is recognized sideways. And that’s to say one of the things that I see a lot in NASA certainly guilty of this is building systems that are very bespoke and frankly not wanting to look outside of its own tribe, for solutions. One of the things I would offer up for everybody is only when you talk about you know, what are what is Australia’s unique capabilities. Leanne mentioned earlier about the mining companies and specifically Rio having a 14 to one ratio between the number of robots to human operators. NASA does not do that. Department of Defense does not do that. Australia not only knows how to do that, you already have that intellectual capital here. And so, my suggestion would be in terms of all that isn’t digital interoperability. When we talk about deploying 40 robots on the lunar surface. Capture the intellectual capital and the experience that your companies already have here. It is very unique. And it’s something that NASA would have to figure out how to do.
SESSION 4 – SUSTAINABILITY/REPLICATION
evolving, design, question, social license, space, Boeing, talk, various different levels, sustainable, initial deployment, environmental conditions, companies, big, respect, constantly, NASA, suppose, higher, operate, economic
- Jason Carr. NSW Digital Market Lead, GHD (MODERATOR)
- Anne Kovachevich, Foresight and Innovation Leader, Arup
- Veronica La Regina, Director, Nanoracks Europe
- Samuel Faigen, Associate Director, HDR
- Andreas Antoniades, Director, Saber Astronautics
- Edwin Betar, Principal Systems Engineer / Lunar Surface Architecture Team, Boeing
Do you think that your company is set up in the future and that you will have a social license to operate in the future based on the design practices that you are following now, or do you believe that those will need to evolve?
Yes. To be honest, if this is something that we do talk about, because Boeing is pursuing the lunar terrain, people bid with Boeing, Australia as part of the Boeing us has been. So, this is something that has been brought up, because we’re the naïve people in Boeing where they were the early adopters, so we ask the stupid questions. So, we are forcing people to think about this. And thinking about design from that initial architecture, that initial deployment right through the sustainment. Because if you ever get bored, and want the shortest novel to read, read the LTV NASA requirements. It’s 10-need statements, not even requirements. And you have to create a system from that, that need a 10-year design lifecycle or 10-year life of type. So, it is absolutely stuff that we are talking about is stuff that we are considering is sustainability for us is an economic success. And you know the benefit is that we do get that social license to operate, but we don’t achieve a successful project and we don’t get awarded a NASA contract unless we can meet that economic and environmental condition as well. So, for us, you know, asking the stupid questions from our American colleagues, we do force some very interesting conversations.
Also yes. I think, from our perspective, we’re not really dealing with we’re dealing purely with the aftereffects of the evolving industry. So, with respect to what we’re trying to do is provide the information, especially what’s in orbit and how things are moving with respect to each other. So that everybody that’s engaging can start to make the decisions and evolve with the way that the scenarios are changing, you know, the number of different objects increasing each passing day the way that the different dynamics associated with the spacecraft command control and, and the different systems but yeah, so I agree, and we’re just trying to help what we can.
Of course, you know, design is a constantly evolving thing, and our life is constantly evolving our understanding of each other and our relationships with each other with the built environment of the natural environment are constantly evolving. So if we have human and environmental-centered design in front of mind at all times, that I think we create our own licenses.
Veronica La Regina
Well, I would like to add the different perspective in a way that today we participate more in the activities of space, we are definitely more active accessing space. So, I would say that if you are more of the probability of a cause is higher, but actually there are more people taking care of the open asset. So actually, the self-protection, I don’t want the guys on my staff impacting on the other one. So, if we are just two, we have to take care of a factor two, or if you’re 100, or 1,000, we have a more tangible mode. So I would say that the self-security regulation is also one driver. Think about like on earth, if you go in a big public square, and tonight you are alone. You feel unsafe. If you go in a big public square with lots of people you feel safe, but actually the risk of collision is higher.
I suppose, you know, we’ve had our own sustainable development is very much at the core of what we do as part of our strategy. But I think with all companies, there’s a massive evolution that just need to go from here. Onwards and we’re only starting to scratch the search the surface of what is sustainable design and what