That’s about a 12-month runway. And then also that technology from the JETSON contract, we’re also developing under NASA STMD tipping point award for the radioisotope power system. So there’s some dovetailing of technology between those two. And I’m really happy to see that while they’re not large dollars for those contracts, what they are is their commitment and some movement in the right direction for an overall cohesive story in the government about nuclear space and how we should advance the nuclear space. So it’s quite an encouraging sign that we’re starting to converge on the types of materials we’ll use, the types of systems we’ll use and to make some progress in the design so that maybe the proprietors can make some decisions about the systems of the future.
Edison Yu: Great. Thank you.
Stephen Altemus: Thank you, Edison.
Operator: Our next question is from Andres Sheppard with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please proceed.
Andres Sheppard-Slinger: Hi, good morning, everyone. Congrats on the quarter and thanks for taking our questions.
Stephen Altemus: Good morning, Andres.
Andres Sheppard-Slinger: Hey, good morning, guys. I was just wondering if you can give us an update on the IM Missions 2 and Missions 3, just when they’re scheduled for? Or what is the current target for? I know in the past, you had mentioned about the second mission being in the first half of next year, possibly in the first quarter. So just wondering if that delay in the IM-1 mission might have an impact on the second mission and so forth. Thank you.
Stephen Altemus: Yes. I appreciate that, and everyone is interested in launch dates. We are planning three missions in 2024. Obviously, you see how we did with our first mission, balancing all the stakeholder needs between NASA and SpaceX and our payload customers. That’s a pretty complicated set of negotiations that get you to everybody’s needs and where you can actually launch and land. The other complication in terms of pinpointing a date for those missions is really in the orbital dynamics and trying to get to the South Pole and specifically, there’s seasons for that. And so trying to shuffle the missions around and find the particular month we want to go for each of the missions based on not only our stakeholder needs but on the landing site – in the landing site selection.
So we’re currently negotiating with NASA on the landing site for Mission 2. And like I said, we have an initial date and the landing site determination we’ll adjust. We’ll move that around. And then as a result, Mission 3 will fall out in a few months following Mission 2. So more to come on that in terms of specific dates as we get closer and as we pinpoint the exact position of the Mission 2 South Pole ice drilling mission. So we’re excited about that one. So – but you can count on at least our firm plans are to put Mission 1, 2 and 3 in the history books in 2024.
Andres Sheppard-Slinger: Got it. That’s super helpful. Maybe one question for Erik. With a cash balance now of about $40 million as of Q3, would you mind just reminding us the run rate, looks like cash used in the quarter was about $7.2 million? So pretty low burn rate. But just what is the expected run rate, particularly as you get closer and closer to these missions?
Erik Sallee: Yes, you bet. So that’s a pretty good indication from an operational cash standpoint. There’s not necessarily increased cash outflows associated with emissions specifically. Obviously, there’s some costs related to launch, but then other costs associated with the missions such as material procurements and other things are dying down at that point, right? So it’s not – we’re not going to see – that’s not going to cause necessarily a big increase or decrease in operating cash one way or the other. So I would say from an operational perspective, that’s a good indicator. Obviously, from the investing cash flows, you saw the new building was the main use there, and we’re completing that this quarter.
So that should tail off. So we’re happy about that. So from that perspective, we can even become even more capital efficient as we talked about, right, moving forward. So I don’t know if you have a follow-up on that or if that kind of gives you an idea of what you were looking for.
Andres Sheppard-Slinger: Yes. No, that’s perfect. That’s helpful. Thanks, Eric, and congrats again on the quarter, and I’ll pass it on. Thank you.
Stephen Altemus: Thank you, Andres.
Operator: Our next question is from Austin Moeller with Canaccord Genuity. Please proceed.
Austin Moeller: Hi, good morning. So it sounds like you’ve spent some time on the hill in the past couple of weeks. But if we just think about the fiscal year ‘24 budget as it comes together, I mean, we’ve got a split Congress now. And so do you think that despite the fact that there’s a lot of bipartisan support for NASA, especially Artemis that there could be some prioritization in the budget for Artemis versus CLPS or other related programs just given that it looks like there’s going to be a lot more control on spending at this point?
Stephen Altemus: Austin, thanks for the question. Yes, I think there’s quite a number of competing priorities within the NASA budget for sure. You see the Mars sample return is under independent review and possibly replanning as it’s over budget. You see the Artemis program having a large price tag and moving to the right, what we find is there’s strong support for Artemis, bipartisan support, as you said. But we do understand that it’s going to flip to the right as it’s a complex program. So what happens with CLPS in our position, as CLPS has been a nontraditional procurement, as you know, and is able to move with some speed and agility at lower cost than these major programs of record. And so CLPS is in a position to be a tool for proprietors and NASA to keep in the public’s mind regular cadence submissions and the moon as an activity that’s of importance.
