I think that would be good. We need the microphone, yeah. Great work. I have a question for Doug. Yeah. So, can you report on the electricity produced during the test flights? So, our first test was really focused on showing that our models accurately match.

So, we were really focused on showing our operations and showing that we could accurately model the interactions. So, we weren't as focused on the energy generation.

Is there any other question? Now is the chance to ask. How many spare systems do you have when this first one crashed?

It's a really interesting question, yeah. We do have a number of spares. We're operating a test site in Hawaii as well, an onshore test site. And then we have our test site in Norway that we plan on continuing using. I don't think we'll, we say how many exact systems we have, but we are testing at multiple places at the same time.

There is a question up there. Do you have any idea to redesign your propeller?

Because I think the propeller is just thrusting, but the wind turbine not soaking. So, I think the question was about whether our propellers are just thrusting or if we're thinking about redesigning them. So, when we're hovering, our propellers produce thrust.

But when we go into our crosswind phase, they turn into turbines. So, that is actually how we generate the electricity. The main wing produces the thrust for the entire kite, but the turbines on board generate electricity and then put it down the tether and into the rest of the system.

So, they're multiple use. Maybe also a question to Ampex Bauer. Almost, but thank you. Yeah, my question is what are the hardest regulations which we are forced in Norway?

Because normally you operate in the United States and when you come to Norway, it's like which regulations were the most complicated ones for you during your operations? Yeah, it was really important for us to work closely. The agencies that we worked with the most was the Norwegian CAA and we worked with them to gain temporary restricted airspace.

So, we were able to test in a safe area. We also had to talk a lot with the coastal administration there and that's both for vessel traffic and fishermen.

So, those were the two regulatory agencies that we worked with, I would probably say the most. We have a question here over there. So, since you have Ampex and Makani here.

So, one of the striking differences apart from many other differences that basically at Ampex I think it's planned to bang the plane on the platform when you land and you do that very carefully. Wouldn't that also, I mean maybe it's more question for you, but wouldn't that maybe also be something which would make your system more reliable if you just jammed it into your platform?

Yeah, I mean the landing looks very delicate. Yeah, in taking our system offshore, the big change was all of a sudden things that were fixed and that have been fixed for Makani for a long time are all of a sudden moving.

In making further steps, I think you have how big your area is and how fast you can hit it are the things that you can make, how you can make that control problem easier. You have to make more changes. Maybe it's more robust. It's just a thought now. I don't have any modeling of that.

I think it's also a question of scale. When you deal with the system of that scale of the M600 of Makani, things are pretty different. If you have two bodies colliding. Yeah, maybe let Surin answer that. We need a microphone.

Sort of. We're using the tether to slow down the aircraft and then gravity will pull it down if we're not already there.

I would think it is quick, yes. Yes. Thank you for your question.