Matt Gialich

But what I realized is, and I think we can all admit this, is it shouldn't cost $5.5 billion.

There's just not that much material being used to justify that cost.

And NASA has this process they've used, and it's almost at this point a jobs program.

You've got to test your spacecraft in this state, and you've got to go to this state to do this, and these people in this state have to work on it.

That's how you get Congress to approve these budgets.

And we're kind of seeing that today all over the place.

With NASA's budget, every week you hear something different, and it's become some senator argued for his state to get it.

That's not a good way to build low-cost spacecraft.

And in fact, we've just seen these spacecraft balloon in price.

And $5.5 billion is just a massive, massive amount of capital to go do something that I don't think should cost anywhere near that amount.

And you're going to hear these famous stories about Elon, and I think a lot of founders will repeat this, that they go and they look at the raw material costs of what it takes and

And then say like, well, this is X amount more.

This is a good price to go and fly.

We've been using that for a long time in business, by the way.

It's just called margin.

And something that we looked at as well of like, hold on, why does this cost $5.5 billion?

What if I could build it cheaper?

And what I realized is I think I could build a satellite a lot cheaper than what NASA does.

is it worth it building it cheaper?

And what I mean by that is you still gotta launch the thing.