In

does thermal imagery does it have a lot of the same limitations as what we might see with with optical imagery? I'm thinking about clouds, for example, shadows of that kind of thing.

So it's got different characteristics. We're looking at a different part of t e spectrum. And what we're looking at is the the radiation emitted by warm objects. So one thing you can immediately do with therman imagry is image in the night which you obviously can't do very effectively with anagib telescope. And you're probably familiar with seeing a those wild life shows where they sort of showa a leopard in the bush somewhere in the night time. Those images are captured with the same sort of technology that we're using. So it does have different qualities. Ind tells of smoke and cloud. So cloud does still block thermal radiation, but we do have the capability to look through certain kinds of cloud. So in particular, fires kick up lots of of sooty ash cloud. And this is very small particles, and the thermal radiation ctat you penetrate through those. So one of the things we can do, which you can't do with optical argiby, is image fires through the smoke that they're producing. So that's a very unique capability, just

in that particular use case. Are we talking about sensing the thethermal radiation given off by the the dust particles in the cloud? Or are we looking through that to the ground and sensing ta the te thermal radiation being emitted by the surface of the earth?

Yes, so. I mean, warm clouds do appear slightly warmer than just of the background air. But in the ase of a fire, you'll quite clearly see the extent of a fire of thesea, focused on its densest point. And that's quite useful if you want to be able to track where a fire front is moving. And turns o nea alert people on the ground where the fire is moving and where it is most significant, at which twould be vey challenging optical arjeby telescopes.