Why Every Satellite Needs Earth | Northwood CEO on a16z

Every satellite requires a connection point back to Earth. If you don't have it, you don't have a space mission. It literally is just like a rock in space. You

just want a $50 million contract with Space Force to help modernize. At Northwood, we want to take space missions further faster. We're looking for a categorical outcome, not just an incremental outcome. Starlink is working on direct optical intersatellite links. How much of that is a threat? I view it as like a 0% threat. SpaceX was able to bring launch costs down by an order of magnitude of what came before. Why hasn't

the same thing happened in Ground? Oh, man.

Bridget, welcome to the podcast. Thank you. So we're here to talk about Northwood. We're

here to talk about space. But first, I want to talk about how you got here. Unconventional career path, some may say. When you look at the arc of your

here. Unconventional career path, some may say. When you look at the arc of your career, what are the threads that tie it together? How do you make sense of your path? You know, following curiosity. I think curiosity becomes the most organic

your path? You know, following curiosity. I think curiosity becomes the most organic motivator for people. And that's definitely the case for me. I think my home environment growing up was really cultivating that curiosity. And my parents also really encouraged excellence, which I think is great. So if you're curious about something,

It's not just something you dabble in. It's something you try to take to the nth degree and really try to understand what excellence looks like in that domain.

And so that kind of has led me to a lot of different places. I've

said this some other places before. My mom is also an incredibly determined person. And

so that's something that I think I was influenced by. And so follow what you're curious about. Do it to the greatest capacity you can, and don't take no for

curious about. Do it to the greatest capacity you can, and don't take no for an answer, and then you kind of wind up doing a bunch of different things in some really interesting experiences. So I feel very grateful for that. It's fascinating because sometimes people frame it as either or. Either you got to get, especially for kids, just straight A pluses, or it's just do whatever you're curious about, but the combination.

Do what you're curious about, but also just absolutely crush it in it. It's an

interesting combination. Sort of in your early career, Did you think it would be forever?

Or at one point, were you like, I'm bored of this, I want to go into academia? How did you make your career decisions? You know, it's interesting, because I

into academia? How did you make your career decisions? You know, it's interesting, because I would analogize to how a lot of people that we bring into our company think about their career paths. A lot of the incredible people that we bring in, people who are totally rock stars in their career, they're not thinking on a 20-year timescale

about their career. They're thinking more incrementally than that about, What am I interested in?

What's that next thing that I'm going to tackle next in my life? And kind

of, you know, maybe there's not a definite timeline attached to it. It's like as far out as you can see on the horizon and just like worrying about that far, because otherwise you constrain yourself too much. And so that has really been how I've approached my career. I would have definitely not expected I would be running a space company. But also, why not? Because all I could see in the

future as an actress, back then, was maybe five years in the future. So you

were like, actress until it no longer became fun anymore, or until academia or something became more interesting. And then in academia, you were like, or at some point, you were just chasing your curiosity. And then you're like, oh, maybe, when did the company idea come into play? Yeah, I think being in entertainment, I got to be a

spokesperson for a lot of different things, and I tried to align what I felt to be impactful with what I was speaking up for. So, you know, as an actor, you wind up being able to have a platform to contribute to a lot of different causes, and that was something that I prioritized. But I think I wanted my impact to go deeper than that. And so I always kind of knew in

the back of my mind I wanted to create my own thing. although I didn't have a concrete idea of what that was. And as a child of millennial era, I got to see the internet coming to life, and I got to see cellular networks coming to life, and what a profound shift that was on the

world before versus the world after. And so I think when the problem set around space networking came up, and when that was something that I started digging into, it connected on that where it's like, wow, this is something, like an opportunity to make an impact on an industry that could be as fundamental at that

kind of level of internet and cellular. That felt like such a unique opportunity to get in at an industry when it was at that early stages. Just seemed kind of like the perfect thing. And you started it with your husband? Was he always on board from the beginning, or how did that emerge? And I should say, my parents also started a company together and ran it for 15 years. I'm definitely inspired

by the mom. That's super cool. Yeah, I mean, it's so funny how people are now like, oh, you start a company with your husband, but people have been doing family businesses since the dawn of time. Yeah, and I think for both of us, we're just both ambitious and kind of curious about how the

world works, and we were both... passionate about building businesses. And

so it was like, all right, let's align our efforts towards something. There's a certain utilitarian aspect to it where it's like we have a certain amount of energy and time and we want the most net outcome from this. So that was definitely a part of my thought process too. But it's been awesome. Yeah, I think it's been a really great experience. Talk about, let's get into Northwood, what you're trying to achieve.

and what's the why now for it? Yeah. So what we do, we're ground infrastructure, kind of end-to-end for space companies, so all the way from the time when they're first coming up with satellite mission, what the space operators want to do, all the way to when they're actually streaming data, delivering that data to the end customers. You

know, the problem that we're solving is for every satellite, it requires a connection point back to Earth so that they can... control the spacecraft, it is kind of like a remote control car where it needs some mechanism to make sure that it's going where it's supposed to go and a way to actually bring that data back to the users on Earth, because that's where the users are. So that

point of contact on Earth is called the ground infrastructure. And super basically, if you don't have it, you don't have a space mission. It literally is just like a rock. in space you're doing nothing with. So ground infrastructure, it's completely fundamental.

And for us, you know, we were observing the space industry, how launch cadence was increasing. You could put a satellite up into space way faster, and you could build satellites way faster, because there was this whole boom around spacecraft manufacturing.

And interestingly, what started becoming the longest pull in the tent was just getting the point of contact on the ground to connect with. So, you know, you could build a satellite and launch it faster than you could actually connect with it from the ground, which just seemed absurd. And so we're like, why is that? This kind of, you know, critical third component was not modernizing, because you'd seen all this modernization happening

elsewhere. And when we started pulling it back, it was kind of like a classic

elsewhere. And when we started pulling it back, it was kind of like a classic value chain problem where there was just not, like, the incentives aligned with each stakeholder in the value chain to modernize and innovate. So you had, you know, antenna manufacturers that were, you know, responding to a call from a customer and delivering them

a point solution. They weren't thinking, like, holistically about how you build better ground infrastructure.

You were having, like, a software integrator layer where they were basically just dependent on whatever infrastructure was being laid by somebody else. And so we realized this is really holding back innovation and a complete thought on what this should look like on the ground side. And so really the only way to address fixing the ground

segment was to do the whole thing. And when we say the whole thing, it includes a lot of disparate disciplines and activities. So it includes things like R&D of antenna hardware, so the antenna on Earth that is physically receiving RF signals from space, interpreting them into ones and zeros, sending them back to the users

and popping them back up to the spacecraft. That includes actually procuring land and doing development at a site to be able to put that antenna hardware somewhere in the world, because satellites orbit the Earth. You need to connect with them as they orbit the Earth. That includes the networking layer. That includes the actual

software API that you have to connect with to give commands at that ground site. And so it was kind of a daunting task. It's like

ground site. And so it was kind of a daunting task. It's like

realizing you have to do this really massive undertaking, this big risk, in order to experience the big reward on the other side, which is unlocking this critical third pillar of infrastructure for the space economy and really enabling it to go to new heights. And so that was kind of like our venture scale problem. We're

like, this is gonna require a lot of money, a killer team across many different disciplines, and it's gonna require a ton of orchestration of all of those different pieces converging together to deliver something that is really better end-to-end, as well as something that you can turn around quickly. And so that's kind

of the undertaking that we've been on. And when did you realize and how did you realize that space infrastructure was broken? Like, what was the idea maze that you guys went? Was this your first idea that you guys decided to pursue? Or how

guys went? Was this your first idea that you guys decided to pursue? Or how

did they come to be? Yeah, man, we've been doing antennas ever since that Home Depot run during the pandemic. That made us ground nerds.

Yeah, so we were... We started working on the antenna designs during the pandemic. You know, that was our summer project. And yeah, we just described ourselves as ground nerds. It was just cool. At

project. And yeah, we just described ourselves as ground nerds. It was just cool. At

first, it was just really cool to be able to receive signals from hundreds of miles away. Like I said, that's the RF waves. They're like fainter than, you know,

miles away. Like I said, that's the RF waves. They're like fainter than, you know, the power on a flashlight that you're getting from space. And you get to interpret that into, you know, for us, it was an image, but for other folks that use satellite data, that's, you know, that's our missile warning system. That's how we find out, like, about any missile going off around the world. That is our GPS infrastructure.

That is our, you know, for a lot of people, that's their one source of internet. And it all comes through a ground infrastructure that is able to interpret those

internet. And it all comes through a ground infrastructure that is able to interpret those faint signals and make it work. So it was just kind of like, you know, one of those magic moments where you just become really... fascinated with the technology. And

then we started peeling it back further, and we did this market study where we looked at all the commercial operators. We looked at, you know, US government use cases as well for how that they were resolving their ground. And

it was at that point, really from the point of first just being curious about the space, that we realized that a big bottleneck was coming. Yeah. Is this an idea that couldn't have existed five years ago because there was just not enough of an economy around? Or, um, in sp... Yeah, talk about the timing of it. Yeah,

I think, um, it really does influence the timing because previously, if you're not as concerned about a three-year timeline between, you know, concept of a spacecraft and launching it, then, um, it's not a big deal if the ground segment can't keep pace. I also think Like, the ideas for how to use space have changed

keep pace. I also think Like, the ideas for how to use space have changed a lot, both, so, you know, pace as well as the ideas around it. So

the mission sets that we're talking to folks about now are a greater level of proliferation. They're talking about way more spacecraft being in communication at the same time than

proliferation. They're talking about way more spacecraft being in communication at the same time than they used to. They're also talking about mission sets where satellites are moving in new ways. They're moving really dynamically in and out of different orbits. You know, previously, you

ways. They're moving really dynamically in and out of different orbits. You know, previously, you could think about, space missions, it was a pretty static world. Like, think about old-school space where it's kind of like science missions, one satellite parked over a certain location, not moving anywhere, sending very small amounts of data. To now, it's this

whole circus of a bunch of different missions needing to coexist, transmitting way more data, and having, like, constantly changing parameters. So I think that has really you know, flip the switch for some of the, you know, government customers that we talk about, like, their missions just would not be able to be resolved without a new ground architecture. And same on the commercial side, frankly. Yeah. Your system is able

to deploy in three months, whereas a traditional ground station deploys in three years. What

enables you guys to have that level of suite up? It really comes down to the vertical integration. And what we mean by that is kind of like what I mentioned of being able to, stitch together all of the different pieces in the end-to-end system so that they inform each other. So, for example, when we say three

years before, what did that timeline look like? It looked like an antenna vendor who, you know, gets a phone call. After they get the phone call, they press the order on the supply chain. They gotta wait X number of months to actually get the parts to arrive. Then they assemble them all. It's a bespoke manufacturing line because it's, you know, it's a bespoke system. They're just, you know, they're doing it one-off,

and then they ship it, and they're shipping a giant piece of equipment, so it probably has to go over, you know, ocean shipping methods. And

then it arrives at site, and you have to put together a giant construction project, because the size of... Many of these antennas, they're like multi-story buildings. So you have to do permitting, you have to lay a concrete foundation, you have to have whole construction teams in order to put them together. That adds up into a three-year timeline.

Whereas for us, because we're thinking of all of those things at the same time as we're doing that development, we get to say, we need our antennas to fit in a standard shipping container that can go on a commercial United Airlines flight. And

so it gets there the same day. We need our system to... be able to fork off of that shipping container and land on a patch of dirt with no concrete and just plug into a standard 240 power bolt. We need

to be able to have that telemetry run across our entire system so that we know how to fire it up in a matter of minutes. So being able to coordinate all of those things is really what's translated to that outcome of shaving off the time. And when did you realize that vertical integration was just where you're at

the time. And when did you realize that vertical integration was just where you're at to go? Do you know from the beginning or is it something you learned over

to go? Do you know from the beginning or is it something you learned over time? And what have you learned about hard tech in the process of doing that?

time? And what have you learned about hard tech in the process of doing that?

Yeah, I think it was a bit of a peeling back the problem space where initially you think, okay, great. We

want to put more capacity. We want to make more capacity available. How can we optimize the ground system to do that? But then there's so many dependencies in what the site actually looks like, in what the software integration looks like. And we just realized that the way to deliver the best

like. And we just realized that the way to deliver the best solution that actually aligns our incentives with the customer was to do the whole thing.

So our incentives are aligned when our measure of success is their mission success. And you don't have that if you're just solving part of the equation. Yeah. Yeah. SpaceX was able to bring launch costs down by an order of magnitude from what came before. Why hasn't the same thing happened in Ground? Yeah, I think it does come down. Like, I hate to be a

in Ground? Yeah, I think it does come down. Like, I hate to be a broken record on the vertical integration, but the reason why that matters is that what SpaceX has done is they've really streamlined their product, right? Like, they're not trying to build a ton of different bespoke products. They build one thing and they make it super efficient and effective. They get the economies of scale and everything. And so for

us, if we were just being an antenna vendor, then we would probably need to build a bunch of different types of products. But because we get to see across so many different solutions, we can think and we invest our R&D in building a solution that works commonly across the industry. So that means that we're accounting

for commercial missions, government missions, allied missions, all within the same system. And that makes our costs lower and more efficient. And when we're able to do it as a shared service, that's really

more efficient. And when we're able to do it as a shared service, that's really the difference for us. We view ourselves more so as a platform. So it's not like a one-to-one sale where you're trying to get all of your value off of that single sale, Our platform is such that many missions can benefit from the

same infrastructure. So we make our investment, and then many customers get to benefit off

same infrastructure. So we make our investment, and then many customers get to benefit off of that single investment that we make. And then what's great for customers on their end with that is that they're able to take advantage of all of the learnings and all of the investment that we've made across a bunch of different concepts.

And so it winds up being more beneficial for them. They don't have to do a big one-off capital expenditure on the system, they get to, you know, smooth out their costs and everybody's happy. Starlink is working on direct optical inter-satellite links.

How much of that is a threat to the ground station business model? I view

it as like a zero percent threat. And the reason why is if you are banking on, you know, any of the space infrastructure, it is about the direction of data volume. And so for us, anything that supports growing the trend of data volume through space is great. We're all on board with

the same objective there. And so for intersatellite links, what's great about that solution is that it's reducing the latency. It reduces the friction of how you can actually transmit data through space. And so think about all the use cases that that opens up. I mean, I think Starlink is a great example of this. Talking about matching

up. I mean, I think Starlink is a great example of this. Talking about matching or in, and at certain times beating internet latency speeds, like that would be unheard of in space before and look at the value of that business. And so I think technologies that align with that trend are really positive. Yeah, that

makes sense. In a potential Taiwan scenario, there's a version where, you know, ground stations can become targets. How do you think about resilience? I think that's a, it's a great question. And it actually is both a commercial question and a government question, like

great question. And it actually is both a commercial question and a government question, like Both commercial and government care about resilience. And I think you can look at a lot of different companies that have tried to address this. We take the similar path of proliferation. So making things cheaper, faster to

of proliferation. So making things cheaper, faster to deploy, more volume manufacturing is the solution to that so that when a single site location goes down, it's not a catastrophe. It's actually interesting for some of our teammates that did come from Starlink, that was their similar model. So they consider resiliency

in the same way, where they have multiple ground sites in a region so that if one goes down, it doesn't totally take their service offline. So I think a similar concept applies here. Yeah. A lot of people analogize the space economy to the early internet. They say, you know, a lot of infrastructure being built, you know, lots

early internet. They say, you know, a lot of infrastructure being built, you know, lots of companies will fail, and lots of applications, very successful applications will be built on top. Does this analogy hold for you? Yeah, for sure.

top. Does this analogy hold for you? Yeah, for sure.

I get really inspired by the analogy, especially thinking about, you know, for folks that were early with the internet, like, there's no way they would have foreseen what the internet is today. But they were betting on a direction, and they were setting up a model that would... that would basically, like, unlock

a lot of innovation. And they were, like... they were developing principles and building aligned with certain principles that would support that innovation. And look what we have today.

Yeah, I mean, I think like things as simple as like TCP IP protocols, for example, like trying to make different layers as easy and supporting for innovation as possible.

So I think we're in a similar moment with the space industry where we don't know what is going to be built. Like a year ago today, would we think that everybody would be talking about orbital data centers? No way. But it's captivated the public imagination, and who knows what's gonna come next? And so, for us, we are

directionally aligned with that movement, and we are building to principles that will support innovation. Like, the whole thing that we're about is taking companies further faster, taking

support innovation. Like, the whole thing that we're about is taking companies further faster, taking space missions further faster. And we do that, you know, by our model, which I've described. So if I were to, like, look forward into the space industry, I think

described. So if I were to, like, look forward into the space industry, I think if you analogize to the internet, you have a couple of platform infrastructure plays that really wind up becoming enmeshed across the internet. And it's

not like you have 1,000 different companies that stand to benefit from them, but there are a few that wind up becoming really influential and fundamental. Cloud is one that we analogize to a lot and we were inspired by, and we want to be one of those companies. Yeah. What is the right way of mental model for thinking about the relationship between the public sector and the private sector in terms of growing

the space economy and industry and sort of technological capabilities? Is it kind of like the internet where a lot of the early work was either done by or funded by government and then the private sector sort of, you know, took the ball, so to speak, or is it more in parallel? How should we think about that? Yeah,

I think it's very analogous. I think it's interesting how the venture ecosystem fits in now in a deeper way than it did back then. Yeah, I think a lot of technology innovation does tend to take place at those fringes that the government use cases are solving for. And I think that's happening now. And

I think the benefit that we have, which hopefully will lead to a shorter cycle in reaching the infrastructure scale with the space industry, is with venture absorbing some of that risk. When we talk to government, you know, they're looking for partners to absorb that risk. And frankly, when we talk to, you know,

some of the commercial companies as well, they're really excited about venture's role in absorbing some amount of risk so that they can pursue bigger ideas faster. Yeah. So

help us outline a little bit of the space economy right now. Is it... How

should we think about if we were to do the market map, like the different types of players? And then maybe the attributes to the market is, is it very fragmented? Are there a couple of big winners to aggregate? What is the right way

fragmented? Are there a couple of big winners to aggregate? What is the right way of thinking about it? Yeah, I think the infrastructure plays are really important for space. There's a number of fundamental things that can be those

for space. There's a number of fundamental things that can be those underlying components that make a big difference. For space, things that matter is obviously launch. Like, you need to have a way to actually get mass into orbit. Power

launch. Like, you need to have a way to actually get mass into orbit. Power

is another big thing to solve for space. You need to have propulsion. That's

another critical thing for space, being able to actually maneuver once you're up there. And

then that connectivity back to Earth is really critical, and being able to kind of orchestrate and network all of that connectivity is really important. And so I think we are in... an interesting moment where that infrastructure is being built out

are in... an interesting moment where that infrastructure is being built out to enable a different set of capabilities. Like, if you look a few years back, you had the small satellite boom, where there were a whole generation of companies that were built off of, you know, doing a smaller level of infrastructure

to unlock different capabilities. It feels like we've evolved into a higher threshold of infrastructure that's going to unlock a whole other layer of capability. Same

way, here's what you think are the biggest bottlenecks to, you know, sort of unleashing a wave of innovations. Like if in a few years, you know, the economy sort of, you know, accelerates significantly or there's a whole wave of startups that emerge or accelerate in their growth, what would have needed to happen? Why could that be? I

mean, like our biased answer is that ground is really critical for that. Obviously, it's

not the only thing. Like I think, you know, you know, to unlock the innovation, like, you know, power is a huge constraint for space. And so, you know, being able to do more in space is influenced by that, but also the amount of data throughput you can get from space. So like power improves, you know, how

much data you could generate in space, but then ground impacts how much data throughput you can have through space, which is critical for being able to actually deliver those missions to users. I was just listening to the Elon John Collison DoorCache podcast on Dana Center Space, which is, you know... I haven't listened to it yet, so apologies if I don't know. Yeah, don't worry. I just had

to say, it was the first time I've heard of it. What is your thinking on it, the feasibility of it? Will compute move to orbit? Yeah, what do you think about it? So our mentality at Northwood is we want to take space missions further faster. We want to enable the most ambitious missions and

further faster. We want to enable the most ambitious missions and translate them from dream to reality as fast as possible.

That is the exact juicy problem that gets the nerds at Northwood excited, is here's this super ambitious concept for space. I think what's captivated a lot of people is thinking about you know, how it pushes society, how thinking about, uh, kind of limitless power from space pushes society. Like, it gets a lot of

people excited and inspired. Uh, and so we want to be supporters of willing that into existence through taking that further faster. So I think a lot of people raise a lot of really valid concerns about it, um, things that require or things that, um, mean there's gonna be long timelines to bring it into existence, whatever it is.

Are we talking training? Are we talking inference, et cetera? Like, you know, there's a lot of different, there's a lot of different details. But

I think our interest in it is how can we understand the space so that we can enable it to go faster towards that outcome. What are

some examples of companies or use cases that don't exist today that you could envision like dream for us of what could some examples look like? Yeah, I think it's like, what are the vertices that you're tracking? So like one vertices might be altitude. Right now, when we talk about space missions, you're thinking of like low Earth

altitude. Right now, when we talk about space missions, you're thinking of like low Earth orbit through to geostationary orbit. You know, it's a certain distance away from Earth.

What if you could stretch that? What if you could have missions that go even deeper into space and have new exploratory capabilities, or, you know, different planets and the like. I think being able to stretch the tether further and further away from Earth, I think, is really interesting for what that can unlock. Another... another vertices is data throughput. So, um, right now, like, the

can unlock. Another... another vertices is data throughput. So, um, right now, like, the concept of matching the volume of data from the Internet to what's being done in space feels pretty preposterous, but what if it wasn't? Like,

what if... what if you could actually... surpass the throughput of data on the internet in space? What kind of applications could you unlock with that? I think the

in space? What kind of applications could you unlock with that? I think the whole interest with compute in space is kind of attached to that concept. So yeah,

I think there's a lot that you can do. I think we have a massive treasure trove of data about our planet that has not really been capitalized. So I

think that is huge amount of latent potential in my mind. So I'm excited to see where, you know, some of the other advancements going on with technology, such as AI, will lead to really unlocking the benefits of that. You just

won a $50 million contract with Space Force to help modernize. What does it mean to say that the Pentagon would rather, you know, buy commercially than build themselves? Yeah,

I think it's a pretty fundamental switch that represents the, the timeline urgency and the change in a ground paradigm that we're confronting. You can't have the same models of procurement if you're talking about proliferated systems where you need to just have such a

huge increase in ground infrastructure in such a short period of time. You need to look at different models. And so, yeah, we were fortunate to be aligned with some of the... great thinkers over on the Space Force side that are really developing what

of the... great thinkers over on the Space Force side that are really developing what that model would look like. And really fortunate to be entrusted with such a significant program so early in our company's lifetime. And to the whole, you know, taking missions further faster point, like being involved in missions of national

significance is something that, you know, that's what we're all about. So I think it's very aligned with that satellite control network. That is a common resource for US government where every launch runs through satellite control network. It

tracks missions across a really wide set of US government use cases ranging from GPS to NASA missions, our missile track systems and the like. So

it is a great opportunity for us to demonstrate the cross-cutting capabilities that we are working on. Yeah. There are 13,000 active satellites right now. Is that accurate?

Tons, barrage. And I think you said that they're collecting millions of data that can't be captured because there's not enough ground capacity. How bad is the bottleneck?

Yeah. So, you know, you can think of a satellite as basically like as soon as it launches into space, it's just a depreciating asset. It's just a really expensive depreciating asset. And you're trying to, maximize the value that you can get off of

depreciating asset. And you're trying to, maximize the value that you can get off of that asset. And the way that you do that is by sending data, because that

that asset. And the way that you do that is by sending data, because that is like the economic value of the spacecraft is the data that can produce. And

the data that can produce is directly proportional to the amount of ground connectivity that you have. So ground is quite literally how you increase the ROI of your spacecraft. really matters for both commercial and U.S. government missions, you know, for U.S. government missions to launch a spacecraft. And like literally there have been a bunch of missions that have been launched with no ground plan. And so that's

like, A, you might just lose your spacecraft, which could be a very consequential loss of an investment, or you just miss out on being able to make good use of those taxpayer dollars. And same for commercial missions. You know, we've heard from a number of different commercial companies, like we are throughput limited. limited in how many customers we can serve because we don't have a big enough ground footprint. Yeah. We

just talked about the contract. What's the next big milestone as you think about your guys' development? Yeah, I think building upon the use cases that we have,

guys' development? Yeah, I think building upon the use cases that we have, I think we've been fortunate to find a lot of aligned customers with the the product that we are currently putting out. There's other products that we also have in the works. I think people know us as a phase-duray company, but with announcements we'll

the works. I think people know us as a phase-duray company, but with announcements we'll have coming out before too long, we are more than that. We are kind of thinkers across the whole ground solution space. So I think it's both that product maturation as well as product development that we'll continue to be doing. While, like

I said, it's orchestrating a ton of stuff, we're also building a global ground network.

We have five international entities now across the world. We're like, we'll be the United Nations of Northwood. And so, yeah, we're doing, we're currently on two continents. We'll be on a number of others before the end of the year. And

continents. We'll be on a number of others before the end of the year. And

so gotta, gotta do it all at once. Yeah. With that, you know, I'm sure there are a lot of space nerds listening to this. Say more about the, the company, the size, the transition from a one product to a multi-product company.

Say more about the company itself. Yeah. I mean, so like I mentioned before, there's a lot of disciplines that need to come together to make Northwood successful. And so

we really tried to pull from the best of the best in each of those disciplines, the folks that have done it before, a lot of folks that have experience with building out sites globally. Like I mentioned, that's the Starlink team, but that's also how can we be creative about other industries that we can source

from? Think about AT&T cell towers. How are they doing that with such global

from? Think about AT&T cell towers. How are they doing that with such global presence? What about Tesla supercharger stations? So just kind of looking at diverse

presence? What about Tesla supercharger stations? So just kind of looking at diverse talent bases for things like that. We have a really robust supply chain team because you have to be able to source in all of the components and make it timely and make it resilient, especially our customers relying upon that. The

engineering team, we have a huge amount of software, actually. So we're known, again, for the hardware of our system, but the software is actually very extensive across networking. We have embedded. We have the actual front end of what we're building. So

networking. We have embedded. We have the actual front end of what we're building. So

it's an extreme multidisciplinary company. And so what's important for us is that we really value the different disciplines. I think that's something that probably I philosophically contribute to the company.

as well as just making sure that we're coordinated and operating effectively as a team.

We have done a lot of scaling. We've doubled in size a number of times already, and we'll hopefully double again in size this year, if not more. The size

right now is? Around 75 employees. Cool. Talk a little bit about how you think about culture at Northwood, what types of people you're trying to bring on, how you think about team building. Yes. I'll give a little window into my expectations that I share with people when they interview for Northwood. The first one is that we accomplish

unreasonable things on unreasonable timelines. They surface level like, sure, okay, everybody can kind of get on board with that. But it's not just a matter of applying more to the problem, um, it's about taking smart risks. So it's not just force, it's also cleverness. It's like understanding the problem deep enough to know what the trades

are that you can afford to make. Um, and so people that are able to do that kind of, uh, mental calculation, kind of, like, take big leaps, is really how you can actually move quickly. Um, the second one is the end-to-end ownership.

of your work. And for me, really, what that translates to is, you know, people who are gonna be bought in in a deeper way to the outcome beyond just checking some boxes off the list. I've, like, kind of been reflecting on, like, where does that come from for me? Like, why is that something that matters for me?

And I think, you know, it traces back to when I was, uh, you know, pursuing my first passion growing up as a kid. Uh, my mom was a huge supporter of me in a way that kind of went... went beyond just demonstrating that she supported what I cared about, but actually enabling me to do it

in a way that, like, went beyond reasonableness. So, um, I, uh, you know, I wanted to be an actress. She's a full-time working mom, sometimes, like, the main breadwinner, and, like, literally could not step away from her job. Like, a lot of parents would have probably, like, in an acting camp and just been like, good luck, cool.

And then maybe just thrown up their hands. But she, like, you know, was on the phone coordinating travel and, like, caretakers and, you know, booking me plane tickets and, you know, figuring out how to get me the resources to accomplish my dream in a way that was, you know, pretty ridiculous at times.

And I think that that's been, like, something that has really stuck with me is the amount of care that she had investment in my dream and where I wanted to go is something that, you know, I get inspired by from a mission perspective.

Like, the amount of care that people on our team have invested in the outcome that goes so far beyond, you know, the description on their job description.

And, you know, that means that like on our North Dakota trip where we were back deploying our first antenna. People stayed up more than 24 hours on multiple occasions in a span of a week where we just needed to get the system running. And then the third one is we're looking for

running. And then the third one is we're looking for a categorical outcome, not just an incremental outcome. And I think what that comes back to is if you want to do something that moves the world forward, you need to have a team. Um, that's something that I learned back from my time in

entertainment. You know, like, I was, uh, working on a TV show, and I'm just,

entertainment. You know, like, I was, uh, working on a TV show, and I'm just, like, one cog in this really big operation. Like, there's no way you could get a TV show on air without a whole coordinated team of people to make that possible. Um, and then if you want to function effectively as a team, you need

possible. Um, and then if you want to function effectively as a team, you need a lot of trust. And so what's really critical to me in having teams that trust each other is, uh, basically like a low ego environment. When people come in the door, they need to be able to admit their faults

in a way that is just purely pursuing understanding what the problem is, understanding what the goal is, and also be bold enough to raise flags when there's issues in a problem set. So, yeah, I think that teamwork, the amount of care and the ability to be clever and take smart risks is kind of like the

foundational pieces of our culture. That's a great note to wrap on. The story about your mother is particularly inspiring. Thanks for sharing it. Bridget, thanks so much for coming to the podcast. Yeah. Thanks for having me.