Nicolas Owens

I give them the benefit of the doubt that they can do it most likely.

but it's not baked in as a certainty to my scenarios.

And then the second piece is whether data centers in space will be cost effective.

Again, I'm assuming they're doable engineering wise, but that's how we get to the $63 is we're probability weighting this outcome against other scenarios where the data centers may not be cost compelling or where Starship is less reusable, less frequently.

So I hope that helps kind of put it in context.

Yeah.

And the real problem, you could say, you know, that lowers these percentages is that two things have to happen.

Starship has to be reusable and data centers in space need to be compelling.

So the kind of combined probability, the way we looked at it, was only 7% for that best case scenario.

And if we learn something tomorrow, which I don't think we will quite so soon, but if we learn more about either of those, I can change the percentages and that would move my valuation.

But in reality, kind of just being honest,

it's still, even at 154, that's still meaningfully below the market price.

So I think you have people also pricing in kind of other moonshot, Mars shot, long range projects as added value to the company that, again, might work out, but aren't a solid 100% probability in my book.

I mean, did we talk about that?

Yes.

But no, there isn't like a line item in my model that says, cool, therefore, you know, or whatever.

We don't really use multiples to value stocks, and that is one of the disconnects.

Our valuation is meant to measure what the present value of the free cash flow to the firm is.

full stop.

And I do my best to model, in this case, a range of scenarios and weigh them into what I would call the most likely outcome or the set of most likely outcomes.