One can ballpark it, during EUV commercialization, ASML had 15k employees, Zeiss 3k, Cymer 1k. 20 years of non priority commercial development, lots of setbacks. Final integration ~5k suppliers. For reference commercial aviation Boeing/Airbus with as 100k employees, 50k suppliers. And we don't even know it's correct technical roadmap. Initially they thought synchrotron better than plasma/LPP but went with latter because synchrotron too expensive, now EUV machine prices ballooned to multiple synchrotron price. Don't be surprise if we find it dead end non competitive tech in 5-10 years if PRC or JP figures out SSMB/FEL etc, LPP may become economically uncompetitive and all ASML EUV becomes stranded assets. This real possibly because while ASML LPP works, it works at far higher cost than original projections, i.e. it's overbudget techstack with lethal scaling costs.
On paper EUV relatively modest undertaking vs commercial aviation, EUV deeper integration vs commercial aviation breadth, but in terms of scale of effort for nation state coordination, EUV probably all things considered, easier to replicate because it has no regulatory slowdown, it's purely host country physics problem. Having enough talent and throwing it at problem x espionage x poaching talent x time will likely solve precision physics problem sooner than later. Vs commercial aviation which has complicated geopolitical/regulatory hurdles and magnitude more suppliers and scale. TLDR EUV has smaller organizational surface area for determined state to pursue through concentrating $$$, talent and effort. You can buy a ex ASML to bootstrap EUV development, much harder to get globe to buy COMAC without decades of airworthiness. There's a reason western analysts predict PRC EUV in 2030s (meanwhile PRC already beat prototype estimate timeline), but probably not realistic for global COMAC in same timeframe, and PRC been hammering at commercial aviation seriously long before EUV.
That's the key - if it was done once, it can be done again, and likely it's going to be significantly cheaper/easier because it's known it can be done. We see this from olympic records (e.g., the 4 minute mile was a "barrier" until one day it was passed and suddenly a bunch of people passed it).
Of course, doing it "legally" is another question - someone in the US trying to replicate would likely run into patent and other issues.
But a top-secret Manhattan-style project done by the US or China? definitely doable, and if you add spy-shit in, perhaps even faster.
The real news is BYD is making blade2, and flash charging (10m - 97%) standard going forward, i.e. all models all price points will recharge as fast as filling gas tank. The flash charging network supposedly also open to all compatible vehicles (probably some sort of titration on older batteries). Once blade2 proliferate, flash charging throughput = can convert many small lots, i.e. convenience stores into recharge stations like gas stations. I think flash charging infra basically just has a fuckload of old blade batteries drip charging from existing electric infra, so no need for major grid overhaul = the station in box charging infra almost anywhere (i.e. if grid supports heavy industrial AC, it can support flash cabinets) is going to be as big as charging time.
E: @10m charge per car, the system basically is scaled to typical gas tank up transaction times, i.e. 10-12m per car. The battery storage sized to survive rush hour throughput then charge off grid or roof solar during lull. Basically parity with gas infra. The plan is also to second life old batteries, i.e. 60-70% capacity blade1s... lots of 1st gen bats retiring, storage is going to be essentially "free" via upcycling. AKA entire battery circular economy PRC mandated recently. The last part is what makes BYD so cracked, IIRC central gov legislated extended producer responsibility recently, i.e. BYD (largest battery producer) legally had to take back and recycle batteries - cradle to grave responsibility, instead of billions in logistics for storing/recycling/shredding they're just slapping them in flash stations to increase deprecation cycle.
I think this is underestimating just how much 1MW is, even allowing for the fractional duty cycle of time spent changing over who's using the charging station. 1MW of 500W solar panels is 2000 panels, for example. It's probably going to be reserved for highway stations that are also conveniently located near substations.
Although you're now making me wonder at what point it becomes more economical to ship electricity in batteries rather than do lengthy, expensive, and annoyingly controversial grid upgrades.
The 1-MW chargers have internal batteries, so they can pull a much lower average power from the electrical grid.
The connection to the electrical grid of a charging station is not dimensioned based on the charging times. It is dimensioned based on the number of cars that must be charged during a given time interval at that location (assuming a certain average charging energy).
So regardless if fast chargers or slow chargers are used, what matters is how many electric cars are used in a region and how much they travel each day.
Fast chargers can matter only indirectly, if their presence will convince more of the car users to switch to EVs, requiring the electrical power suppliers to take into account this increased consumption.
> The 1-MW chargers have internal batteries, so they can pull a much lower average power from the electrical grid.
We go back to what I was saying earlier [0], you'll need a lot of local storage to keep that charger running at full speed without breaking the back of the distribution grid. That comes on top of the solid grid capacity at every one of those many small parking lots.
One stall alone needs 1MW maybe equally split between the grid and the local battery, for probably 50-70kWh per car. Just 3-4 of these cars charging in a parking lot would mean a constant multi-MW pull from the grid on top of the battery that also needs to be recharged from somewhere. To guarantee that you lower that average you need to have enough local storage.
The technology exists, it works really well for large dedicated charging spots. The problem is the cost of scaling when you have to deal with lots of small plots (what OP proposed). A 1kW installation with 2-3kWh battery storage is the size of a small container and we've had them for years. Why do you think every small parking lot hasn't been equipped with one?
> requiring the electrical power suppliers to take into account this increased consumption
This doesn't scale like software. Adding production is comparatively easy, adding distribution capacity isn't. It needs a lot of equipment that's not really available [1], and a lot of construction work to expand the grid capacity.
I posted math in another comment, maybe wildly off. It's 1500 kWh of battery from 30 old blade1s / upcycled byd packs, + 600kWh of grid power (typical industrial i.e. no need for major grid changes) + 30 kWh of solar roof (i.e. minor contribution). Scaled for 3300kWh for 2-3 hour morning/afternoon rush, about 100kwH per car. 100-150 cars per day like typical gas pump. The key point is the battery storage with upcycled old batteries (i.e. 0 capex) is CHEAP and space efficient, and since storage basically free, they can simply stack more packs in future to grow buffer if required. Of course assuming long term proven safety, i.e. no laws mandating burial. Otherwise storage is couple parking spots big x 2m high. Can stack to 4-6m... but I think regulatory will probably prevent it from any higher. TLDR basically system scaled/designed to use typical grid power + size battery buffer + charging speed for gas station parity.
Flash charging is 1MW - 1000V, 1000A. That peak power has to be provided by the grid or some energy storage that can be replenished in time for the next cars. We need cheap and smallish batteries (because burying is not always an option) to be able to install that much storage and peak power output in the MW/MWh range all over the place. We'll eventually have this but we might be talking in decades rather than years.
@10m per car across 2 cables = ~36 cars over 3 hour rush hour throughput (comparable to 2 gas pump) = need ~4000 kWh, 1500 kWh from battery 1800 kWh from grid = 3300 kWh. This worst case all cars 0-97% charge, realistically mixture so 3300 kWh should cover typical peak scenarios. Then midday lull for grid to refill batteries for evening rush, after again overnight charge from grid. Basically 1x2cable station can service 100-150 cars/day comparable to high-density gas pump.
In terms of physical size, battery storage smaller than gas in terms of physical infra = doesn't need to be underground (assuming long term blade safety ensured). Gas needs storage for multiple days / week so need to scale underground tank accordingly. 1500kWh scaled for rush hour = battery storage (recycled) realistically ~30 recycled blade1s slapped into racks, a couple parking spaces worth, and can be stacked vertically. It's much more space efficient (and cost efficient) than gas.
Even older supercharger sites in crumbling post-collapse USA are 1MW (4x 250KW stalls).
I think Tesla has an off grid(!) supercharger site in California with 168x 500kW peak v4 chargers.
It seems pretty doable to just spread the chargers around to meet the same throughput without causing any hot spots on the grid. The cars already have internet connected navigation systems that can react to how busy a site is and direct you to the next one.
Big deal for ubiquitous charge and moving away from charge hub model. Stop by any local convenience store and getting topped up in 10 min, no need to even consider detour time, i.e. BYD parterning up with KFC china to add flash charge - KFCs everywhere in PRC. The bigger deal is infra play, battery buffer mitigates grid hotspots (supercharger sites), so drop station in box in more places with less regulatory drama / capex in grid rework. Combining short charge time + ubiquitous/dropin charger combo that makes it work. Removes friction for drivers and much more economical for builders, can replace 60 spot supercharger site with 10 flash chargers. Instead of building out a charging hub, slap a few chargers in some existing retail lots, i.e. charge where you fastfood with minimal of permitting and construction - the hardware are cabinets on concrete ground pad- it's closer to modular appliance like industrial hvac than infra. Potential for proliferation very fast. IMO it's intermodal container moment for charging.
Just for 2 stalls you need to provide 2MW peak power (e.g. 1MW from the grid and 1MW from the battery), and you need probably at least 2MWh local storage to make sure you can always buffer the load. Add the large solar installation to "trickle charge" that battery. Every KFC needs upgrade works for the grid, the battery, and the solar panels. That's technically possible but financially not too attractive. Transformers are in short supply, construction work to upgrade every one of the lines isn't fast or cheap, and the production capacity isn't there yet to feed to the upgraded grid. That's why I said decades.
China might pull it off because they can steamroll objections and focus on individual topics to push them according to the plan. Can many other countries afford this?
Nothing ever is when you just have to type about it.
> 1MW (4x 250KW stalls)
Flash charging is 1MW per stall. You can lower the speed but then you're not flash charging.
The challenge isn't whether you can build a 1MW charger, BYD literally did it already [0] and is planning to build 4000 of them across China. The big deal is to do what OP proposed, to convert many small convenience store parking lots to flash charging type sites. The technology for a 1MW charger is there, scaling this to "many small parking lots" [1] is damn hard. It needs rebuilding the power grid for the increased capacity, and having enough local storage. Neither is cheap and fast to get.
The math doesn't work for converting "many small lots" unless you get creative about what "many" and "small" mean. Every one of those lots needs the 1500 kWh battery storage + 600kW grid draw + 30kW solar installation. It's not a problem of whether the technology exists, but scaling it in an economically feasible manner.
It's moving power requirement from industrial scale to commercial scale, not even large commercial. See BYD partnering with 10000s of PRC KFCs, if the grid can support KFCs it can support flash charge, which makes it more or less ubiquitous anywhere with reliable grid.
The modularization + battery is what makes variable scaling feasible, do not even need full 1500 kWh + 600kW grid power depending on throughput, that's based on max utilization parity with gas pumps, most systems can be smaller. System is also inherently variable mix match grid draw and battery % according to need. i.e. 500kHw battery storage and 300kWh draw for low utility areas. More battery for high utility area which going to have good grid anyway (at least in PRC). The scaling is easy because as mentioned in another comment, the system is almost drop in, commercial HVAC / applicate installation.
AND because it's functionally drop in, low footprint, there is no minimal # of piles, you can spread 1-2 piles in any lot with a couple spots to spare because you don't have high fixed capex of digging a big ass underground oil tank or permitting / earthworks for charging hub with many piles. The system scales to smallest possible increment, ~1-2 parking spots for pile charger + recycled battery. Everything on paper makes this stack MORE economical and easier to proliferate in more spatial configurations than gas / hub charging infra assuming there is grid. i.e. this won't work in off grid stations.
I'm sorry to say it but a lot of your assumptions are not accurate. Nothing is impossible but it's a lot harder than your assumptions make it look.
> if the grid can support KFCs it can support flash charge
A large KFC probably peaks at 200kW. Stoves, HVAC, lighting. A single flash charging stall could power 10 average KFCs. I hope this puts things in context.
> See BYD partnering with 10000s of PRC KFCs
BYD said they'll build 4000 charging stations [0]. China can pull it off because they can afford to "stick to the plan" no matter what and because they're able to manufacture the necessary grid components to keep up [1]. Can many other countries?
> do not even need full 1500 kWh + 600kW grid power depending on throughput
You keep doing the math that ignores one term: per stall. You either have the capacity to flash charge at every stall, or you don't and you have to find excuses for your customer and move the goalposts in this conversation. If you want to guarantee that capacity then you need no less than 1MW/stall. How you supply it doesn't matter but grid+battery have to supply it. No matter how you mix and match and balance, you'll need to install one and upgrade the other.
> the system is almost drop in, commercial HVAC / applicate installation.
Except you don't replace an existing installation, you add something that needs 10+ times the electrical capacity of everything else put together. That increase needs to be accounted for somewhere.
> you can spread 1-2 piles in any lot with a couple spots to spare because you don't have high fixed capex of digging a big ass underground oil tank or permitting / earthworks for charging hub with many piles.
You literally have to do all that work but for the grid, transformers, panels. KFCs aren't built with 2MW overhead just in case.
The already existing 1 MW chargers have internal batteries, so they do not need from the grid the peak power, but only the average power.
The average power is lower, as there are idle times between cars. Moreover, in the beginning only a few cars would be able to charge at 1 MW, so the average power will be even lower, allowing a later upgrade of the connection to the electrical grid, when fast-charging cars would become more frequent and when there would also be more EV owners, so that more cars would have to be charged per day.
My understanding from watching a video on this last night, the same Blade 2.0 cells going into the cars are going into the charging stations. And it just so happens that BYD is massively scaling the manufacturing of these.
The 1 MW chargers installed until now (in China) are 1000 V / 1000 A.
So the charging voltage has been increased, to allow a less increase in the charging current.
I assume that the car negotiates with the charger the charging voltage and the maximum charging current, and then the charging proceeds at the limits established by the least capable of the two.
Nice, not $150 nice. Steam controller pretty potent mediapc input but steamos keyboard finnicky. Wish they go all out and add something like xbox keyboard attachment.
Well on paper ASML leverage = EU has access to western semi tech stack. It would be interesting to see Europe successfully strong arm leading edge fabs in EU (not for lack of trying) exchange for ASML access... but Netherland has independent pro US foreign policy.
Norway extracts 1/2 oil as Canada but has 1/8 the population. Canada too big to be petro state. Canada has lots of other resource endowments, but not enough to sustain norway tier of per capita sovereign fund returns even if it massively increased extraction game. Only hope for Canada is US being really friendly, or even more friendly and force Canada to retool internal trade / reduce braindrain and build and capture more value in commodities and other sectors.
This just PRC finally applying their version of US export controls, i.e. PRC gets to control PRC originated algos, same argument as TikTok. The founders aren't held "hostage", they're under investigation for violating export control and national security laws. PRC hinted signalled pretty clearly they would use art12 (catch all clause) of export control laws and offshore affiliate rules (to address Singapore loophole) before Manus deal closed - Manus ignored loud hints. The difference is PRC wasn't super judicious in enforcing AI related export controls (especially since agent development new hence art12), US would have ensured this control list tech wouldn't leave US territory via foreign product rule / CFIUS / BIS. PRC gave pretty clear signals to Manus what was going to happen hoping they'd unwind on their own, but they didn't so now they're going to eat shit.
PRC still haven't gone the step up to ban PRC strategic talent from working in US like US has for PRC semi. Don't be surprised in 5-10 years US has to hire PRC workers with obfuscated identities like PRC dealing with US/TW talent in PRC EUV. Plenty more room how these things can escalate depending on how serious PRC starts to treat dual use AI.
Not that I fan of CCP, nor I know details of this situation, but isn’t barring people under investigation from leaving the country a pretty normal legal practice?
I wasn't actually trying to distinguish away from states but rather from nations. I understand "nation" to have a specific meaning centered around sovereignty within indigenous scholarship. I should've just used "state" but I didn't think it'd sound as edgy
The double standards applied between China and Western democracies could work maybe a decade ago, before the US dropped the veil of hypocrisy that shrouded the imperialistic monster.
Oh no taking passport for flight risks during investigation for basically treason... down with... every government in the world.
Anyway that said, with respect to PRC export controls "barring people" is also not wrong conclusion persay. For those down in the thread wondering what PRC can do about it. PRC doesn't have US 80+ years tier of extraterritorial instrument, i.e. banking. But PRC does have fuckload of talent, i.e. 50+ of global AI, soon 50%+ of global semi.
Seems like talent is going to get controlled according to new rules on countering foreign states unlawful extraterrestrial jurisdiction measures from state council a couple weeks ago. IIRC decree 834/5. There's a reason it was front loaded before Manus announcement. TLDR make it illegal for Chinese nationals to work in any US/foreign company that PRC puts on malicious entity list.
In theory, this cuts off huge % of PRC talent willing to work for targeted companies, unless companies spend $$$ guaranteeing green cards, because PRC nationals working in these companies or affiliating with individuals (including Manus founders if their scheme worked out), i.e. Facebook, would basically be committing treason. A fuckload of greencards because need to buy out all stakeholders, i.e. it kills poaching entire PRC teams / companies, any PRC talent funnel dead for affected companies. Nevermind coercing families, many competent PRC talent has millions in RE/assets, if not personally then via inheritance, all gone. Ask where US AI or tech would be without tons of tier1 PRC talent. Of course some will argue this good thing (derisking etc).
US absolutely has exit bans on people who break/is being investigated for national security and export control laws, which is what Manus did. Except Americans don't call it hostage taking when they do it.
It's not their thought, it's core technology created under PRC registered entities before Singapore switcheroo, which makes their IP PRC origin and under purview of PRC according to PRC law. For actual law, article 13 of PRC 2020 export control. Basically catchall provision / blanket ban hammer (for cases of new tech like AI agent), i.e. presumption of denial / ban.
USA has banned the export of some EDA software from Cadence/Synopsys to China.
Therefore the export-control laws of USA obviously make illegal the export of "thoughts".
An even more clear example if that any US citizen who knows classified information or even just a trade secret of some private company and who would tell that information to China would do something illegal.
In this case China argues that the IP has been created in China and its transfer to Singapore does not make it eligible for transfer to USA.
This is the same argument that USA has used multiple times in the past, e.g. for forbidding ASML to sell equipment to China and for forbidding TSMC to have Chinese customers for its advanced fabrication nodes, despite the fact that in both cases the IP that originated in USA some time ago was only a very small part of the products sold by those companies.
If USA may do this, then China is certainly also entitled to do the same. This is not whataboutism, but both countries must be treated equally, either such actions should be forbidden for both under the international laws, or they should be permitted both to do whatever they please.
There is absolutely no doubt that USA is the country who has invented this concept that its laws can be applied outside its territory and they can be applied to things that are the property of non-US entities, as long as they have any component, no matter how small, which has originally been sold to them, directly or indirectly, by an US entity.
I consider any legal interpretation of this kind as abusive and ridiculous, but no American may criticize a foreign country that does nothing else except imitate what USA does.
As another comment mentioned, comparing "employees trying to selling GPUs to an unauthrorized country" and "CEOs selling a company built on national resources to an outside country" is spherical cows levels of comparison.
Another wrong comment doesn't make being wrong less wrong. CEOs/persons trying to sell controlled technology unauthorized for export by origin country. They are direct legal analogs.
Wrong how? It is your comment that is missing the point. The contention isn't whether USA has export control (you are the one who brought it up), it's whether USA has actually prevented a company from being sold overseas by detaining their owners.
> it's whether USA has actually prevented a company from being sold overseas by detaining their owners.
notably china isnt doing this either: they are barring exit, not detaining, and the reason for barring exit was not reported, so its a stretch to say that its to prevent the sale of the company overseas.
The US:
- makes broad claims of jurisdiction
- has export control, which is listed in the article as a potential reason for blocking the sale, and
- restricts exit from the country when it wants to make sure certain people are available to chat
I dont see whats so exciting about pushing on this specific case. There's an error of, "who's tried to export controlled IP by selling their company to a foreign adversary?"
I dont see what's so exciting about this case that the US definitely absolutely wouldnt take a pretty similar approach to china - bring the CEOs to testify before congress and keep them in the country til the government is satisfied. What's so out of the ordinary that makes this interesting? This is the stuff that goes into work compliance courses.
you might instead want to answer which high tech defense contractor for the US has successfully been bought out by say, iran, china, north korea, or russia, that the US has given the OK on?
I expect there's a lack of data either way. It doesnt come up because people generally move their companies to the US, not out
Although it's true that there's no stated direct link between barring the CEO's exit and Manus's deal, it's not that much of a stretch to say that, specially given China's priors.
Still, I'll concede since that's not what's relevant to me. I'm more curious about the claim that USA would do the same. I can see congress calling the CEO to testify, but keep them in the country until the government is satiafied? How? AFAIK congress has no such power, and the executive may try, and they might be struck down by the courts.
While US has export controls, this wouldn't be a company incorporated, or running, for that matter, in the US (so the Supermicro already doesn't qualify). It would be a company, say, incorporated in the UK. Even if the company started in the US, this, AFAIK, would be unprecedented. Hence the relevance of showing a prior case.
And, make no mistake, I'm not here to say USA is better than China, but these "China is just doing what USA does" claims are getting ridiculous.
US export controls prevent companies from selling controlled tech. If US companies tried o circumvent then they would absolutely be denied, if they did secretly anyway, against, the law of course they'll likely have passport surrendered, i.e. exit ban if flight risk.
Like this isn't complicated, the difference is Manus was full blown retarded enough to transparently circumvent PRC export controls after PRC closed loopholes and politely signalled them to stop, which they didn't, i.e. they broke actual export control laws. Like Manus didn't try to sell, they fucking sold, sign and dotted, despite being told not to, because its against export control laws.
Even US companies rarely this blatantly dense. Americans getting exit banned for selling controlled hardware is LESS serious then what Manus tried to do, i.e. lesser (relative) export control crimes in US getting same treatment.
What are you talking about? Here are the concrete differences:
1. The U.S. has had a long-standing, extremely public policy that you Cannot Sell Nvidia Chips to China since 2022. Supermicro is an American company (based in San Jose, California), and they sold chips to China from 2024-2025, and they got caught, so they were arrested.
2. Manus founders created... an agent harness? And their company was incorporated in Singapore, not in China. And after they sold their Singaporean company to Meta, China decided that selling Singaporean agentic software "violated export controls" (and even the CCP representative couldn't list which supposed control it violated), and detained them all in China and is attempting to force the Singaporean company to unwind the sale.
These are not really comparable. The Supermicro folks are running a company in America and knew ahead of time, for years, that what they were doing violated American export controls. In the case of Manus, they weren't a Chinese company, no one knew they were supposedly violating unwritten export controls, and China decided post-hoc to detain them all and attempt to force the (Singaporean!) company to unwind the sale.
Quite simply this has never happened in corporate America. America is very friendly to corporations and you'd have to be wildly, knowingly in the wrong to get arrested for an M&A deal.
No they're exactly the same, except Manus more retarded than Nvidia and Supermicro.
1. US had wiffle waffle export control policies on what TIER of compute that was exportable. When policies were unclear and compute threshold shifted, Biden admin signalled blank understanding of "presumption of denial" in interregnum while policy figured out exact controls. Nvidia stopped exporting until clarity. That's what due diligence / compliance means.
2. Manus created AI algo in PRC and hence under PRC purview. Fired their PRC team and thought incorporating in Singapore was loophole to transfer PRC controlled tech to US for fat paycheck. PRC was signalled before sale finalizes the Singapore loophole was not some lawfare gotcha to circumvent export controls. This was PRC version of presumption of denial. Ultimately PRC gets to decide if Manus technology CREATED IN PRC is exportable, and under what conditions. PRC company in Singapore fine, using Singapore to transfer to US... not fine. The amount of signals Manus got was similarly clear. PRC writings were talking about art13 of PRC export controls being triggered long before sales. Manus did the retarded and illegal (treasonously) thing and decided to go through with sale and forced PRC hand, when due diligence meant you know, not. AKA Manus did a supermicro but more egregious.
America so friendly they have to export control PRC... prevent US talent from working in PRC semi amirite. Oh wait, turns out when it comes to national security / duo use tech both sides are wildly not business friendly and can play the same geopolitical game. This hasn't happened in America, because quite frankly US businesses are not retarded enough to flaunt US national security instruments due to US gov extraterritorial reach. Manus thought they can do so with PRC who has less extraterritorial = reach, and now PRC slapping them as example. Also no one's arrested yet, just exit ban for ongoing investigation. But would not be surprised if they do end up getting arrested, because they wildly, knowingly in the wrong.
On paper EUV relatively modest undertaking vs commercial aviation, EUV deeper integration vs commercial aviation breadth, but in terms of scale of effort for nation state coordination, EUV probably all things considered, easier to replicate because it has no regulatory slowdown, it's purely host country physics problem. Having enough talent and throwing it at problem x espionage x poaching talent x time will likely solve precision physics problem sooner than later. Vs commercial aviation which has complicated geopolitical/regulatory hurdles and magnitude more suppliers and scale. TLDR EUV has smaller organizational surface area for determined state to pursue through concentrating $$$, talent and effort. You can buy a ex ASML to bootstrap EUV development, much harder to get globe to buy COMAC without decades of airworthiness. There's a reason western analysts predict PRC EUV in 2030s (meanwhile PRC already beat prototype estimate timeline), but probably not realistic for global COMAC in same timeframe, and PRC been hammering at commercial aviation seriously long before EUV.
reply