Thank everybody for OHB's Q1 2023 numbers. Welcome everybody to the analyst conference. I hope you have been able to download the documents. I'm here together with Kurt and Lutz, and Martina and we would like to walk you through our slides and then of course, we are ready for a Q&A session. I think it was a solid start into 2023, and if I may just start with a few slides, showing structure of the group. Nothing really has changed on this slide. The only change that I see is that we have changed the name of a company within Lutz's digital division. Company which was called OHB Cosmos International is now called OHB Orbital Access.
Same business, just a different name, because I think it shows better what we are trying to do and what we are doing at this small entity. Other than that, Lutz and Kurt, I don't think there are any changes to the fundamental setup of the group.
Strategy as well. OHB 2025 strategy is getting closer and closer. It's just two years ahead of us, a couple of weeks ago, actually two weeks ago, we had a review of that, it's pretty much the same that it used to be in terms of the scope, of course. I think what is important in the scope is that we see ourself as an end-to-end space system provider. I think what is obviously important is that the downstream portfolio is growing and doing well. We'll come to that later. Satellites, of course, are the main business. Full launcher is something that we are working on. There has been some little confusion at the publishing of the 22 results about our role in Rocket Factory Augsburg.
I think we'll get to that as well if we talk the numbers, but we're very much enthusiastic about RFA, and I think we think we do very good progress there. The other points, I guess if I look to the financials, the goals are still the same. 8% EBIT is our goal, and I'm sure we'll talk about the numbers a little bit in detail. What are the highlights of the last quarter? Two important contracts have been signed by OHB Italia. One very important competition, Comet Interceptor, was won. Contract value, EUR 117 million. It was a typical ESA competition. We're very happy to be in this domain now. A lot of commonality with our Hera mission, Italia is leading. It's a very strong OHB team.
broad contribution from different OHB companies. As I said, leadership in Milan, OHB Italia, so we're very happy about that. Interesting, as the name said, it's a Comet Interceptor. It's a launch in 2028, but it's somehow launching and not knowing exactly which comet it will intercept, so it's like a wait and see mission. It's an exciting mission, but it shows that also with lower value, with around EUR 120 million, there are really exciting missions to be done. Somehow, as I said, it builds on our asteroid deflection mission here. Another important contract that we signed also with ESA, but out of Italy and with substantial Italian money, is the Earth Observation constellation, IRIDE. 12 satellites firmly signed and 12 additional satellites as an option.
It's, well, of course, an Earth observation constellation with optical monitoring, very small satellites, a class of less than 50 kilo, also developed in Italy, part of the Italian extra efforts to invest in the framework of the recovery fund. We're very happy to build those satellites in Milano. It shows that we have been very successful in smaller missions. I think we're the first, I mean, actually the first time that I see such a mission being contracted in that class of satellite through ESA contracts. Again, we'll see how that then contributes to the commercial and, of course, also scientific data provisioning. We hope that this will not end at 12 plus 12. Again, let's wait and see.
Two upcoming telecom projects we are interested in and we are fighting for is the German military program, SATCOMBw 3 for the secure communication for the German Federal Armed Forces. We have decided to bid in a consortium as a core team partner. This is going on. The proposal will be delivered in a couple of weeks. This is still confidential, but we are participating there. We believe in a very strong team. We believe with a very high probability that this team obviously is then soon also able to sign a contract. IRIS², a big European secure communication project, secure communication constellation for the connectivity. OHB is a core team partner in a big European consortium of operators and satellite manufacturers.
This has been published a couple of weeks ago. We're very happy to be in that team. We are happy with our role there. We hope that this program is now being implemented in the next months to come. On aerospace segment highlights, Rocket Factory Augsburg is building up its rocket for the orbit transfer vehicle, the engine is making good progress. The upper stage testing in Sweden has started successfully. First firing was a couple of weeks ago. We hope to do a few more important steps before the end of May. Our selected launch site spaceport operator, SaxaVord on the Shetland Islands in United Kingdom is moving along. Here it says launchpad operational. I think this is a little bit over stating.
It's not operational, but it's about to be implemented, and there are already significant infrastructure being established from us, but also from SaxaVord overall, in the overall infrastructure of the spaceport, but has not been operational. Digital, also here we move along quite well. Downstream market obviously is strategically very important for us. OHB Digital Connect has been selected by ESA to develop so-called IMEO project, monitoring critical infrastructure from space and near real time. Yeah, this is an important project we did. On the overall topic of green cities, GEOSYSTEMS GmbH is moving along quite well there. I'm sure you have heard from Lutz a couple of times, the CityCLIM project. This is going well.
We are coordinating a consortium of a couple of companies that are involved there. I think not just the numbers are doing well in our digital part, but also the downstream, specifically the downstream activities. Moving to the numbers. Backlog was a little bit weak at the end of the quarter. That's not a big surprise. EUR 1.8 billion, roughly. It hopefully is about to increase in the next couple of months. We are working on many proposals. I'm sure this will be part of the Q&A session. You see the cycle that you always see with the ESA ministerial conferences. As you know, we had half a year ago in Paris, there was a successful ESA ministerial conference that secured significant funding from our countries.
Of course, mainly Germany, but also Italy, Sweden, and the other countries. Here are the numbers in Q1. We had a very solid Q1. Backlog, as I said, slightly below. Total revenues plus 11%, EUR 202 million. EBITDA is positive. EBIT 10% increase. You see that we're doing well. The earnings per share is up from EUR 0.36 now to EUR 0.41. We're doing well. The headcount is slightly up. Overall, it's a solid set of numbers that leads us to confirm our guidance for this year. This is a very short, already success of the Q1 numbers. In more details, you see the revenue in the last, compared to the last four years, increasing. It's a record actually.
It took more than EUR 200 million total revenues in the first quarter. You know the first quarter is typically slower, so it's not proportional. You see profitability. EBITDA is doing well with EUR 21.5 million, so we're doing okay, I think, on our path to achieving our guidance. Space segment, of course, the biggest, also with EUR 155 million for the first quarter. A record quarter. Profitability pretty much on a decent way. Aerospace is on its path of recovery. We saw that already last year. You see that the path of profitability is going, is continuing.
We see that the EBIT margin is now 1.9%, and last year it was only 0.3%. This is doing okay. Of course, we do have some difficulties in aerospace too with Ariane 6 not yet launched, but we hope that it will launch in the early part of next year. We'll see that. The digital business, as I said, stable with a double-digit EBIT margin, 10.1% EBIT margin for first quarter. We are optimistic also to see here the plan being implemented. Putting that all together, the guidance that we released in January is confirmed on this occasion. That's not a big surprise.
we foresee our total revenues at EUR 1.17 billion. we see space and OHB on a continuing growth path. Same actually also for the other numbers. after the EUR 99 million EBITDA last year, adding about 10% to go to EUR 109 million this year, is our goal. also EBIT you saw last year with EUR 63 million, a significant increase compared to the previous year, 2021, of 34%. Now we see about an increase in the rate of only 10% here from EUR 63 million-EUR 70 million. also this is, of course, confirmed. The outlook, we don't wanna talk about that in more detail.
I guess if there are any questions, of course, in terms of the prospective work, Lutz and Kurt and myself are ready to give you a few hints on that. The overall scenario is unchanged to what you have seen in our March communication after the 22 numbers and also in the January capital market day information. Looking at the balance sheet, not much change here as well. We see basically the same balance sheet, slightly less total assets than at year's end, which is a good sign. The balance sheet structure has not changed at all. Same on the shareholders equity and liability.
We are now at pretty much exactly EUR 300 million equity as book value, EUR 299.8. It's another slight increase, that obviously has increased our equity share to 28.7, I guess, almost 30%. We're doing quite well on that side. The rest of the balance sheet is pretty much in terms of its structure. The typical evolution after year's end and then in Q1 failures. Yeah, a couple of numbers. You see that free cash flow in Q1 this year was slightly better than it was in last year, where we had - EUR 89, and now it's - EUR 62. Net debt is slightly better at EUR 241 and compared to EUR 251.
Yeah, own work capitalized with EUR 2 million is a low number. Since couple of years, we're capitalizing less than we are amortizing, which is, I think overall, a good thing to do. Return on capital employed is low with 8%. I'm not completely sure how that works. Maybe Kurt can give some little bit background on how this number came about after, okay, 9% last year. It's not such a significant change. Net debt, if we look at that, it's a little bit lower than we had it a year ago from EUR 251 a year ago to EUR 241.
If we look at it, net debt without pensions, it's at EUR 169, so it's slightly above where it was a year ago at EUR 155. We expect the overall cash this year to be pretty much similar to what it was last year. Cash is always a concern. Interests are going up, so we have higher interest spending. Cash is something we carefully manage. It's very much on our mind, and Kurt and I had a couple of discussions over the last days how to exactly foresee this. As you all know, it's not so easy to foresee the cash over a full year. Again, we don't expect significant surprises there.
Investment spending is pretty much the same level as it was in Q1 ago, EUR 4 million. Out of that, own work capitalized EUR 2 million. It's comparably low for a company that grows, comparably low for a company with such a strong technology focus. That obviously is very much ingrained in our business model that we do a lot of developments and a lot of also investment building up our capabilities within the products we are doing as paid work. Yeah. Nothing to add here on the free cash flow and return on capital. What is a little bit longer is the financial calendar.
Martina put together a couple of more events this year, so we wanna go out to a higher number of conferences and events. We have built up our coverage with analysts. We are, as you can see, visiting more conferences. This is because we believe strongly that our share is very attractive, is undervalued, and we are focusing on communicating that for the remaining of the year with events like the Stockpicker Summit, like the Next Platform with Otto. When we're going to the Baader Investment Conference, Green Conference, of course, the Deutsches Eigenkapitalforum.
We feel obliged to have a strong focus on a stronger communication because again, we feel that now in a time where interests are going up, equity is very important to be also understood and appropriately valued. We believe that that's at the current level of valuation not fully in the stock price. Good. That concludes my quick overview, and I'm opening the floor, and I believe Martina is moderating the questions.
Yes. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We will now start the Q&A session. Please note that we will, as always, record this event and provide it on our homepage afterwards. Yes, as always, if you would like to ask a question, please raise your hand and you can come into the session directly, or you have the possibility to write your question in the chat. First, or we will start the Q&A session with the contribution of Alexander Hauenstein from DZ BANK. Mr. Hauenstein, you should be able to speak now. We can see you, but we can't hear you.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Yes, sure. Yes, we can.
Perfect. Thanks a lot for taking my questions. I've got a few of them, so we can maybe go 1 by 1 through them. First of all, could you please provide us with an update about the group order intake you expect in 2023? What you have seen in Q1, is this in line with your initial expectations a few months ago, or has there been any kind of slippage into the next quarters? That's the first one.
It's relatively easy to answer. We should be at a higher level after at the end of Q1 normally, which means we see a delay in ESA implementing the decisions of the Ministerial Conference in 2022. Several reasons for that. There's a change of management structure in ESA, which has a certain impact. There is IRIS², which has blocked lots of ESA resources and so on. We see that ESA comes out with their IDTs later than what was originally forecasted. In other words, we haven't lost anything with ESA. We still have the same list of projects, the same even probabilities to win, same probability to come. We don't see projects canceled.
What we see on the EASA side is a certain delay compared to our expectations and the timing of competitions starting and that therefore, orders being awarded. I'm not too concerned about it. Q1 should have been a bit higher, but as I said, it's not due to losses on the EASA side or in any institutional customer. I come to the commercial market in a second. If you look for year-end, it's a bit difficult to predict between Q4 and Q1, I would say. There might be some slippages to Q1. We don't have real indications for that. Seeing that they are slower in Q1 than what we expected and what they had announced in their own timing plans, there might be some slippage.
At the end, the important thing for us is the order intake we get out of a ministerial conference. It's of course always nicer to have it in Q4 for the year-end figure, at the end for, let's say, the destiny of the company, it's not that important if it's a Q4 or a Q1 order intake. It's more important that it is an order intake. On the commercial side, commercial side plays a significantly lower role in our order intake list. It's really much lower than what we expect on the institutional side. We see clearly that with the increase of interest rates, that commercial customers have more problems to finance their projects, in particular startups.
If I look at our order intake list, and with which probabilities we have this in as weighted order intake, I don't see a reason to change the expected order intake at this point in time. The only thing which I really see is, or I'm a bit concerned about, is that some EASA projects might slip from Q4 to Q1, but this is gut feeling. We don't have any indication from EASA in terms of new timing plans or so, which would show this already.
Okay. Thank you. That means, if I remember correctly, you initially targeted more than EUR 1.4 billion. Would you say we take a cautious view on the more than EUR 1.4 billion, or do you think that the EUR 1.4 billion is definitely too high according to what you know for the time being?
I would not say it's definitely too high. I'm just saying I have a little bit of uncertainty regarding the timing of these EASA processes. The absolute number is fine, but if we achieve it by end of the year or by end of Q1, I'm not 100% certain at this point in time.
Okay. Understood. Thank you. Coming to the margin side, looking at the space systems and the digital segment, they are each a bit below last year, not dramatic, but could you comment here a bit on the reasons for that, and give us especially some kind of view about the expected development over the course of the year? Are there some kind of new normal things to consider or are there some points picking up again due to certain improvements in availability and pricing, whatever it is?
Yes. As from my point of view, I see very clearly in the first quarter, there's a sense of pressure on the cost side due to inflation impacts and due to increased energy costs. That's the main reason for the pressure under the margin in all areas of the group. At the end of the day, this is the main change. We have really received also in our P&L. The other operating expenditures are substantially higher than compared to the first three months of last year. That is the point where the margins are under pressure. In our business plan for 2023, 2024, 2025, we have made certain assumptions concerning inflation rates, concerning increase of salary. We have made assumptions, but we will see whether they are sufficient or not.
Nobody can really exactly say what will happen with the inflation rate all over for this year and for the next two years.
Nevertheless, we have expected it more or less in this way we see in here. There's no really big surprise for us.
The energy cost and the wages, I expect will stick for that kind of level over the next couple of two to three quarters probably. They will not change in the one or the other direction directly as it takes some while until it throughs through the P&L, no.
Yeah. What we have, concerning the salary side, we have made an assumption our business plans fully align what we will do this year. Very simple. One-to-one, 5% salary increase. This is what we are doing. This is what agreed with our work council, and this is will be done at the end. No surprise on this side. On the inflation rate side, perhaps a little bit surprise is that in there are certain cost areas where we see, increase of costs, which we have not expected at the end of the day. Energy cost is clear. We have expected that at the end of the day. In some areas, in principle, everybody, consulting services and licensing costs and whatever, has increased their prices. In some areas, it's a little bit of surprise, but it's no major issue.
Okay. Are there also some release parts to be seen, let's say, in electronics components, whatever, or is this unlikely?
Well, you are right. What we really see is, we have, concerning electronic components where we had in the last one, two years really problems concerning availability, and we had really delays in our supply chain. This is no more the case. What we really see very clearly now is the electronic components, the belief parts and stuff like that, which are of importance for our project, are really available now, and there's no major pressure on this side concerning schedule, criticalities and issues like that. Also there we see no substantial price increases in these areas, so this really is the case. There's really a relaxation of the critical situation we had in the past two years concerning electronic components.
Okay. There's an offsetting part to some other parts, and let's see how things develop in the net position overall.
Yeah. There's another offsetting part, and this is that customers, including institutional customers, are more open to escalation formulas again. We had years where both sides, customer and contractor side, were favoring fixed and firm price contracts simply because you save lots of effort if you don't need to renegotiate the prices every year. With the current evolution, obviously a fixed and firm price contract is not the best thing you can have, and we see clear openness on our customer side that they will accept escalation formulas again for new contracts.
Okay. Thanks for the clarification on that side. Coming to the next question, regarding the expected first launch of Ariane 6, you mentioned something like, that you have a hope to launch it next year. That doesn't sound too confident, or am I wrong in that interpretation? Have there been any changes at the horizon, or do you still expect it to be, let's say, in the middle of next year roughly?
No, no. Of course, we are getting closer and closer. The program moves along well. Now, of course, in May 2023, we're much closer than we were when we talked at our capital market day. I'm getting more and more confident that we will see the first launch of Ariane 6 early next year. Whatever that means in detail, obviously there are still a couple of tests to be completed. Obviously, everybody works very hard on it. But I think we're within a year of the first launch, and that is psychologically very important, so we're really getting closer. Because as you know, for the last, I don't know, two years, we were always discussing the potential first launch date. I guess we're now closing in here.
That's psychologically very important. I think there are progresses and exactly the date is not for us to publish. I'm just more and more confident that it will be in the earlier part of next year. Within a year I'm pretty sure that we will do it.
Okay. Thank you. Last question. I read that you recently lost on court, regarding the Galileo case. Is there any impact, to be expected for your balance sheet? Just checking.
This was the court that was two and a half years ago, or when in early 2021.
Yeah.
It was January 2021, so almost two and a half years ago when the decision was.
Yeah
that we lost the Galileo competition. We had a success in the legal proceeding for the injunction. Now the final case, however, was decided against us, it was determined that the commissioner did not have an obligation to follow the supposed irregularities that we were hinting at. That's the decision, and that's what it is, but it doesn't change anything on our balance sheets. We did not have any claims or any assets related to that in the balance sheet. It's over now. We're happy to continue. Of course, we have been very disappointed, and the shock was very deep when we lost it two and a half years ago.
life goes on, and, yeah, we are still aim at becoming a part of the Galileo future again.
Okay. Thanks for that, and, yeah, also good luck for the future of Galileo here on that side. Thanks a lot. That was it from my side.
Thank you, Mr. Hauenstein. We are now looking forward to the questions of Zafer Rüzgar from Pareto Securities.
Yes, good morning to Bremen, and I hope you can hear me.
Yes, perfect.
Yeah. My first question is on IRIS² and there's a lot of news around that in the past weeks, and it would be interesting to know how is OHB positioned in that consortium. You mentioned, given the fact that there are also other satellite producers, are you more on the prime contractor side, or what will be your role in this consortium?
Actually, then there was a milestone on 26th of April, where bidders had to qualify or hand in qualification documents to be eligible as a bidder in IRIS². From all what we know informally, not officially, but informally, there's this one large consortium where we are part of, and there are a few other single bidders where we can hardly imagine that they would be eligible. Anyhow, that's the decision of the commission. We expect then in late May, mid-May, the commission to declare who is eligible and then end May, the ITT to come out. Within this large consortium, you have the whole European industry. On the operator side, you have SES, Eutelsat, Hispasat, Hisdesat, and so on. On the telco side, you have Orange and Telecom Italia.
On the OEM side, Airbus, Thales Alenia Space and OHB, all three part of this consortium. It's a very large consortium, and this is driven a bit by the way the tender was shaped by the commission. They went a way where in total there will be four tenders, but more than 80% of the whole thing is in the so-called main tender. To disclose any work share which we have agreed at this point in time. Clearly, we have such agreements. Why don't we disclose them? Simply because the ITT is not out, which means all arrangements which we have done now are kind of preliminary.
We don't know the final specification of the ITT, and this might have an impact on the work share, not in terms of % of work share, but in terms of who does what precisely. The second thing is that it's a PPP, which means we need to be competitive as well because a private investor wants a return on investment and that's a very clear and understandable interest. If we look at OHB's position without being precise, we are actually very satisfied. We reached what we wanted to reach. We have our part of this overall consortium where OHB will have its responsibility, do its things. We are not intermingled somewhere in many things.
We have a very clear work share, in an area where we are strong as well. I believe the positioning, which we have there is quite a good one, and actually, if this all goes through like it is, it will be shaping for OHB's future. In a positive sense, of course.
Okay, thanks. The next question is regarding SATCOM, and would be interesting to know if you are able to share the name of your partners and what kind of solutions they are going to provide to this program. Are these more companies on the defense side of that business? I'm not sure if you were in the past also in a consortium, or is this now new due to, let's say, change requirements of the government?
The change came out of the way the tender has been done by the government. It's on the one hand, it's the specification given by the government. It's the valuation criteria and then the percentage of valuation given to certain topics, combined with terms and conditions and so on, which were driving industry to join forces, to combine strengths in two different areas of this of this tender. I will not disclose our partner. We strongly believe that with this partnership, probability to win is certainly above 80%, and that might be a conservative and shy assumption.
We can guess that's a German name, right? A German company.
I'll try, but, I will not go further in terms of naming our partner.
Okay. Right. Okay. Regarding the recent Italian orders, you mentioned that you already started to process the program. Would be interesting to know the revenue impact of these missions in the first quarter on space systems.
On the first quarter, it's pretty low. I don't know the exact number, but low double digits.
Okay.
That's because we are at startup phase, so that's more or less where you're doing architecture work and so on, which means even on the engineering side, you have not hundreds of people working at the beginning. In the beginning you focus on the overall architecture, you focus on getting specification for supply chain done and so on. Just by nature, you have a certain ramp up in each and every program and we are at the beginning of these ramp-up phases. Therefore, really without having a precise number in mind, but I would say somewhere low double digit.
Okay, thanks. Finally, on the P&L, Mr. Melching, you already mentioned the operating expenses, which are extraordinarily high, with EUR 60 million compared to EUR 9 million in the last quarter or last year's quarter. Is that the new run rate given the inflation impact, for this year, or do you expect this to come down in the course of the year more towards, let's say, EUR 10 million level?
I believe that this will coming up slightly down because there are some extraordinary expenditures in the first quarter, and I believe that this may be lower in the next following quarters.
Yeah.
Okay. Can you share the extraordinary items, the amount of that in the first quarter?
Extraordinary consultants costs had some extraordinary lawyer costs, which we had not expected, which we don't think is not true, but which was really simply in the first quarter and which will hopefully not coming back in the next quarters.
Okay. Understood. That's it from my side. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Rüzgar. We will now welcome Henry Wendisch from NuWays to the panel. Mr. Wendisch, you should be able to ask your question now.
Hi. Good morning. Thanks everybody for the presentation. I hope you can hear me fine. Basically, I have only two remaining questions that haven't been answered already. I would like to know in the aerospace segment, with the launch coming in the next year, do you see that the cadence is already increasing to the estimated six to nine cadence of Ariane 6, or is it still at four for this year? Yeah, if you could share some info on that would be perfect.
For this year it's still, the lower part. Of course, that's a big question out there and there are people very optimistic about the ramp-up of the cadence. Other are more cautious. Our planning is more on the cautious side. In Augsburg we do a cautious planning because we are pretty early in the manufacturing rate, so we do have a buffer. We have already manufactured under the ongoing contract of 15 shipsets, a certain amount of equipment and shipsets. We are not the first. I mean, we are, we're not running out early. We believe, again, we hope that the optimistic guidances will become true. We don't really change the manufacturing this year.
We see this more at this level of, four shipsets, that we produce this year.
Okay. Thank you very much. My last question is, actually two weeks ago, the Japanese tried to land on the moon, and I would like to know if your lunar surface access service is still on track for the 2025 mission and how it's going on on this side?
That was unfortunate. It showed that landing on the moon is more difficult. We saw some time ago our Israeli partner with Beresheet. This one, some time ago, some months ago, I visited the European company of ispace-EUROPE in Luxembourg. I saw also hardware there and a very excited team. It's very unfortunate that this mission didn't succeed. I'm not exactly sure how this will go on. Again, it just shows how difficult it is to land on Moon or let alone Mars. Many projects are attempting that and only a few are really succeeding. With regard to our moon projects, I will hand it over to Lutz, we are working there very hard on our proposal for the ESA side.
The ESA business is going well, but the proposal preparation is going on. The commercial part, I don't really have an update, but maybe Lutz has an update.
Yeah. I mean, we believe that on Argonaut, which was formerly named EL3, so this large European mission towards the moon, the large logistical lander, which actually is a base vehicle, which then has different payload or payload modules for either cargo or science or so. We are very confident that we have a very strong team then, and this team is very well supported by the way nations have signed the budgets for this mission in the ministerial conference, which means that primarily it's Italy and Germany more or less on equal level. Italy is slightly higher than Germany, but it's, if I remember well, EUR 130 million and EUR 120 million, so more or less equal level.
They are the main supporters of this mission. We are in a team with Thales Italy here for this mission. This fits very well to the interest of the nations. Technically we are very confident that we have a very, very good offering, which includes lots of OHB Group companies. It's not only space system, landing legs coming from MT in Augsburg and so on. Tanks coming from them. Different parts of the group are involved here. Strong positioning, very confident that we will play a major role there. Very confident that the TAS OHB team will be the winner. Of course, Airbus will bid.
In terms of nations involved, in terms of technical solution, in terms of what the space agencies want to do in that mission and what we are offering, that's a very, very good fit. I would wonder if that one would not be ours. Commercial side, more difficult, but a much, much smaller scale. I mean, that's would have been a mission in the range of EUR 100 million total, while Argonaut is at the end over the different ministerial conferences, a mission which is in the EUR billion region, so minimum 10 times larger. Commercial more difficult because it's more difficult to get commercial payloads at the moment.
This was a taxi to the moon, and if you take a taxi, you have to pay for the ride. This is really getting more, more difficult, so I'm a bit more skeptical on the commercial mission.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Wendisch. Since I do not see any more questioners or questions in the chat, I would like to hand over to Marco Fuchs again.
Yes. Thank you very much, Martina. Yeah. There are no more questions, obviously. I think it's just for me to say thank you. We're of course looking forward to have you digitally with us at our upcoming Hauptversammlung, the annual shareholder meeting, which will take place two weeks from now. Actually, I think pretty much, I think tomorrow, two weeks from now. We have an exciting update there on many things, and of course, we will are ready also for questions. Other than that, obviously, you're all invited to stay in touch with Martina, with Kurt Lutz and myself. If you're ever in the region of Bremen or Oberpfaffenhofen or Augsburg, drop by. I think it's exciting to see the launchers in Augsburg, the satellites in Oberpfaffenhofen, Bremen.
From my side, just, thank you for your attention and, for your interest in OHB. I wish you a good day, and let's stay in touch. Bye-bye. Thank you.