Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hasher:
I got the joke. Thought it was cute.
Like you and others here, I've picked up some scars but what I don't get is how you've apparently reacted to having been burnt by your experience with the company. At the risk of putting words in your mouth... "I put money, time, and personal effort into something that didn't pan out for various reasons and the nature of those reasons was so offensive that I'm now 100% convinced that nothing this company ever does will turn out well. Further, anybody who thinks there's some probability that things might work out from here is either stupid or trying to trick people."
Okay, fine. But this stance puts you in the position where whenever you get the urge to post you might as well type the word "ditto" and click on "submit." It's sort of like disassociating yourself from Edison's attempt to come up with an electric light bulb when he tried the seventh or seventeenth or 700th filament possibility. True, it lets you say "I told you so" but it totally eliminates the possibility of being involved in any success.
I'm not saying success is inevitable, just that a discussion forum worth reading would be one that tracks progress toward a real battery with current technology, patent & people, keeps an eye out for any tendency to repeat the unfortunate practice of printing stock to pay for stock promoters, and uses that compound assessment like a pair of spectacles to look at current stock price.
For what it's worth, I truly wish that you were cruising around on the bike of your choice paid for with money that you accidentally earned as interest on funds set aside to pay capital gains taxes.
Regards,
Caradoc
News sounds good! Kitco news has link to Mineweb commenting on the implications. I particularly like this snip of Mineweb quoting Merrill Lynch:
***snip follows***
In an update published Monday, Merrill Lynch Research Analyst Michael Jalonen wrote, “Thanks to a slew of development projects, we see Goldcorp’s gold output rising to 3.5 million ounces by 2010 (Penasquito is forecast to contribute 400,000 ounces of gold). This represents an above-average production growth rate amongst the global cold producers and above the average growth rate for the North American senior gold producers. Cash costs are forecast to remain below $200/oz over the next several years.”
ML has previously given Goldcorp a “BUY” rating with a price objective of $38 a share, based on the company trading at three times estimated NAV of $12.60/sh.
***end of snip***
So far, Jim Sinclair has been right about gold beginning its next move between 15 and 18 Jan. If he's right about how much movement in POG during March, GG should do even better than Merrill Lynch suspects.
Caradoc
interesting...
Congrats, Trainz! A couple of pesos on the upside here too, but not enough to finance the pheasant hunting expedition we talked about years ago, much less Preamp's kilt party.
Might make an interesting "alternate history" science fiction story to flesh out an alternate universe where the company chose to focus on making batteries rather than printing stock to pay market promoters.
Caradoc
Yes, lithium usage could increase the price, especially if the recently reported approach of eliminating the graphite avoids the fire hazard of some lithium batteries. I'm hoping any increase is minimal, because LiOH is one of the two chemicals in the electrolyte of the alkaline nickel-iron battery that got me interested in PWTC in the first place.
An old article on the subject:
http://www.manufacturingcenter.com/dfx/archives/0401/0401yr.asp
Or, Google's cached version:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pOVHpl-zLmMJ:www.manufacturingcenter.com/dfx/archives/0401/0401y...
Anybody know whether the current reticulation is something other than 12-sided? Reason I ask is that AS's original patent (now finally and clearly PWTC's) already covered dodecahedronal reticulation for literally any chemistry which would include vitreous carbon, lead/tin, and anything else.
Caradoc
check yahoo press chart set for "maximum."
A cancer cure at $2 per share?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=11017443
Could make for a memorable investment....
Caradoc
OT for Gulfbreeze/ others:
Thanks for the tip on PVCT that you addressed to Don last week. I've been researching and buying. Here's my quickie intro to the company:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=11017443
Regards,
Caradoc
PVCT = momentum with more on the way. A cancer cure at 2 bucks or so per share may sound fishy, and it sure sounded that way to me when I first heard about it last Thursday as it broke past $1.80 per share. Since then, I've done a lot of reading.
Just to get your DD started....
* Preliminary results are in for Phase 1 on breast cancer (kills cancer cells and doesn't enter or harm healthy cells) and Phase 1 on prostate cancer is about to start.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060427/sfth054.html?.v=51
and click on "initial report" at http://www.jmdutton.com/research/PVCT/index.html
* Schedule shows use of FDA's "fast track" approval process with combined Phase 2/ Phase 3 for breast cancer taking about 6 months.
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/business/article/0,1406,KNS_376_4541948,00.html
* Throw in OS of 35.5 million and float of 21.3 million.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=PVCT.OB
and the CEO's personal effort to publicize the company as an investment opportunity between now and June 3,2006.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060503/nyw043.html?.v=53
My crystal ball sees real momentum for the next few days. Then, unlike the usual 3-day wonder, a 10-bagger before beginning Phase 4 for breast cancer. And after that, the numbers get big.
Caradoc
A cancer cure at 2 bucks or so per share may sound fishy. It sure sounded that way to me when I first heard about PVCT last Thursday at less than $2 per share. Since then, I've done a lot of reading.
Just to get your DD started....
* Preliminary results are in for Phase 1 on breast cancer (kills cancer cells and doesn't enter or harm healthy cells) and Phase 1 on prostate cancer is about to start.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060427/sfth054.html?.v=51
and click on "initial report" at http://www.jmdutton.com/research/PVCT/index.html
* Schedule shows use of FDA's "fast track" approval process with combined Phase 2/ Phase 3 for breast cancer takes about 6 months.
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/business/article/0,1406,KNS_376_4541948,00.html
My crystal ball sees a 10-bagger before beginning Phase 4 for breast cancer. After that, the numbers get big.
Caradoc
OT for Logman/ others:
Yes, I've been in touch with Reg. (For any newcomers over the last year or so, Reg Guheert was the stockholder battery guru that a bunch of us got together to send to the battery conference in Long Beach a few years ago. I was fortunate enough to share a meal with him at the Proud Bird restaurant near LAX before watching him head south on I-405, legally driving solo in the carpool lane because of the electric vehicle he had rented from Budget's EV Rentals.)
For my solar setup, I had initially focused in on one company's NiFe cell -- partly because the specs looked better and partly because of its sleek appearance compared to the clunky looking competition -- but wanted to tap Reg's expertise before putting my money down. After reviewing the spec sheet, Reg not only approved but said he was impressed by the figures on internal resistance and liked the way having two negative and two positive terminals on each cell would simplify the circuitry for a two-inverter setup. He also pointed out that going with a set of the 600 amp hour cells rather than 500 would enable me to make full use of my 5,500 watt inverters.
Bottom line: In a few weeks, I'll join Reg as one of the few people whose solar setup has the advantages of the alkaline chemistry nickel-iron battery that Edison invented a hundred years ago and which Alvin Snaper was on the verge of recreating when he first developed the patent for foamed plates.
Here's link on Snaper deciding to use the new structure for lead acid rather than continuing with NiFe:
http://www.manufacturingcenter.com/dfx/archives/0401/0401yr.asp
Regards to all,
Caradoc
Broke over $2.00 today and only beginning to move! Here are excerpts from Dutton's report on PVCT:
In the right solvent and under the right conditions, Rose Bengal has been found to confine its destructive effects almost
exclusively to tumor tissue. The conditions that exist in tumor cells that allow a saline solution of Rose Bengal to cross the
cell membrane are not fully understood. However, key elements may be that membrane fluidity is higher in diseased cells
than in healthy cells. This solution does not penetrate the membranes of healthy cells, as shown in Figure 2. In addition,
any of the drug that is not taken up by cells is rapidly cleared from normal tissue.
Enrollment [in Phase 1 study] began in August 2005. Reported interim results from the first patient cohort that received treatment with a
low-dose regimen indicated that the Provecta was well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy data were also positive and in line
with those observed in preclinical models; that is, tumors were destroyed within seven to 14 days, there were no serious
adverse events and there was no evidence of systemic toxicity.
The Phase 1 study is scheduled for completion in July 2006. If the results are positive, Provectus plans to begin before the
end of 2006 the first of what is expected to be two Phase 2 trials.
Caradoc
Now that IS good news: the company making its own foam with 97% open structure. Even after adding whatever mineral and/or paste it should still be more than 90% open. If I remember correctly, the ideal figure arrived at previously was 93%.
Caradoc
dfh/ others: Here's one supplier's spiel on vitreous carbon as opposed to graphite:
http://www.2spi.com/catalog/mounts/vitreous.html
snip: "Carbon can also be prepared in the glassy state, sometimes called the vitreous state. Carbon in this form is completely amorphous and shows no signs of crystallinity whatsoever; by x-ray diffraction one sees only an "amorphous halo". From our perspective, the glassy carbon ... exhibits properties that are nearly as dramatically different from the properties of graphite as diamond."
I haven't looked at Firefly's patent, but this difference in material is at least a difference in the two approaches being pursued. On the other hand, I've spent a fair amount of time going over AS's original patent and the use of any material (including regular graphite) if foamed in a dodecahedronal structure would be an infringement of AS's patent.
So, even if the wording of the two patents is such that there's no automatic conflict, it behooves PWTC to be/ become aware of specificly how Firefly chooses to implement their approach to "foaming." I can imagine a scenario where their approach to foaming the graphite just happens to be dodecahedronal since that's the most efficient way to expose more plate surface to the electrolyte. No point in letting them get away with the benefits of AS's patent just because their patent is broadly worded.
Caradoc
OT for Reguheert:
Reg: Are you checking your gmail account? Just forwarded email on NiFe. Pretty, better/cheaper than the other two sources, and all the advantages of NiFe. Sadly, none of the benefits of my favorite patent by AS, but after a decade, I'm ready to settle for what's available. After all, one advantage of NiFe is being able to add more cells later. Maybe someday....
Caradoc
UIBT.PK?
dfh: Good read! Thanks.EOM
well worth reading. Thank you!
http://space.com/businesstechnology/051109_airships.html
Just skimmed two days of posts....
Good to recognize a couple of names from elsewhere! Am playing INSQ and agree about GTE a month from now. Meanwhile, I'm jealous of Lap because I can't retire until January.
Congrats on the grandchild!
Caradoc
Weeks? I'd say 50% probability that today we break past the resistance at .0095 and at that point going past .01 becomes easy.
We'll see, won't we?
Caradoc
OT for Trainz:
PLNI? Sold it for a little less than a double. Missed out on it going over a triple. Looks like it's about ready to buy again.
Thought I was smart last Friday selling my HISC at 7.8 cents (was in at 2.6 cents.) Watched it go over 12 cents today. Ugh... Not so smart after all.
My biggest winner this year was GTEL. Biggest loser was SPRL.
Speaking of what's on and off topic, since PWTC didn't do what a lot of us had hoped (like allowing you and me to team up to reduce dangerous over-population of deer and pheasant in beautiful areas of our country!!!), there's arguably a PWTC-related need to make a few sheckels somewhere or other, and INSQ at less than a penny a share looks like it has potential.
Take care, my friend. We may yet get to swap hunting stories.
Caradoc
INSEC Corporation (INSQ, OTC:BB) began trading 15 July after merging with Incode as announced the day before:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050714/nyth098.html?.v=15
Lots of reasons why INSQ should move briskly upward with some probability of 5- or 10-bagger:
* The idea is simple. If beverage containers from fastfood restaurants and convenience stores all used the
same size of lid, they'd save money and free up shelf space for other5 purposes. See advantages in today's
PR from the company that designed OneLid (TM) and owns 70% of INSQ
* Great press release this morning from Greenshift, the company that designed OneLid and owns 70% of INSQ.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050718/nym061.html?.v=16
And here's INSQ's PR from this morning on manufacturing and selling OneLid:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050718/nym062.html?.v=15
Just remember there's more money to be made in producing the product than in having designed it.
* Finally, whatever the demand is, supply of shares is constrained by Greenshift holding a large position (presumably so that they'll benefit from sales as well as having designed OneLid.)
Caradoc
Totally OT:
Great news came out a couple of hours ago and INSQ (OTC.BB) is up 28% all the way to 65% of a penny per share. If this isn't a quick double or triple with some probability of a 5 bagger or better, I've never seen one.
Just how I see it...
Caradoc
And breaking past $2.80 will be even better!
Caradoc
In a 2002 speech to a Colorado group, Pete Aldridge (Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) went on record as an advocate of High Altitude Airships.
After introducing the concept of Advanced Concept Technical Demonstration (ACTD, DoD's technique for skipping the R&D stage by demonstrating a prototype of a mature technology and immediately buying a fleet of them), the first ACTD that he chose to brag about is the one NORAD sponsored for High Altitude Airships.
*********snip************
The High Altitude Airship is a free maneuvering, high-altitude balloon that will provide many of the same functions as a satellite.
It is solar powered and will fly untethered at an altitude of about 70,000 feet with a 4000 pound payload of surveillance and communications gear. It will remain on station for up to a year.
To those representatives of Colorado’s commercial satellite companies, let me just say that there is no need to blanche at the thought of losing business to a fleet of hot-air interlopers. In fact, this program would probably result in a significant extension of your market.
The payloads planned for these airships will likely be very similar to the packages on satellites. But because multiple payloads will be needed for each airship, marketing opportunities could be greater.
In addition, technology refreshment will likewise be simpler than with satellites making for higher paced business cycles and improved spiral development benefits.
Airships will compliment, not replace satellites. Keep in mind that satellites are necessary for the High Altitude Airship to function.
Interoperability with satellites would be another opportunity for payload providers. That could spell business opportunities for the majority of the commercial satellite companies.
Finally, this system would have commercial applications. It could open markets for users who can afford the payload, but not the associated launch and orbit costs. By the way, This ACTD was initiated and sponsored by NORAD... a Colorado employer.
By now we are all familiar with unmanned air vehicles — UAVs. The most prolific version from the recent Afghan campaigns was Predator, and more recently, Global Hawk. Both started life as ACTDs.
************end of snip***********
Link to above: http://www.dod.mil/ddre/aldridge.htm
Link to the man's bio: http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/aldridge.html
Later that year, the HAA ACTD was taken over by US Missile Defense Agency, formerly BMDO and SDIO, AKA "Star Wars." (See Jane's International Defense Review - 17 November 2002).
Since that time, USAF Space Command commander Gen Lance Lord and USAF Chief of Staff General Jumper have climbed aboard as stratellite advocates. (previously posted on this board) And we all know how many branches of the US military joined NASA in showing up at our industry forum earlier this year.
Finally, here's Defense Daily (6th headline fron the top) with the clearest explanation I've seen yet for the mechanics of stationskeeping. I'm glad they're talking our stratellite rather than generic HAA but I'd rather see the right company or at least mention that Sanswire is a subsiduiary of GTE.
Evenso, if/when DoD buys a fleet of HAAs, it's pretty clear who they'll be buying them from. What's not clear is how deep price per share goes into the realm of double digit dollars.
Just how I see it....
Caradoc
I'd never heard of "neural network" forecasting a year ago. Since then, I've been impressed by a poster named Twowave on Kitco's gold forum who every Sunday evening puts up a one-week projection of the price of gold. He's often off by a day and sometimes off by two days, but he correctly identifies the coming week's overall flavor 70 or 80% of the time.
With that as introduction, several RB posters are looking at stock100's neural network forecast for GTE over the next week. Just go to http://www.stock100.com/ and type in GTE inbox near upper left. The projected blue line doesn't do a good job of reflecting $3.60 for tomorrow, $4.38 for Tuesday and so forth so look at the numbers rather than the blue line.
If GTE is up sharply next week, I'll suspect that Twowave is the guy behind stock100.
Caradoc
A little more publicity (scroll down about 3/4):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/
(Link found by Deanis of RB.)
Nothing wrong with free publicity, but it's about time that the Sanswire site (if it is to continue to exist at all) should include identification as a wholly owned subsidiary of GTE.
Caradoc
Kramer corrected his pronunciation of the company's name and mentioned VOIP so he does have some awareness even though he said nothing about stratellites. Obviously, everybody on this board knows more about the company than Kramer.
Caradoc
Phone/cellphone/broadband internet for cost of less than $5 per month? That'll be an offer that's hard to turn down. You can fast-forward through about half of this link to hear interview of CEO Huff talking the <$5 per month figure:
http://www.amex.com/?href=/atamex/news/events/2005/br_GTE_053105.htm
Caradoc
Anybody know whether the Firefly battery's approach to reticulation is dodecahedronal? If it is, a lawsuit should be an easy winner; highly likely to be offered an out-of-court settlement to avoid losing bigtime. (Don't accept it!!)
If it's not dodecahedronal, it's less efficient than PWTC's approach but I have no clue as to what chances a lawsuit would have.
Best luck to all!
Gordon
Mide: Good information! Thank you.EOM
I suspect the military have decided to skiop the prototype and go directly to the real thing, probably on a bigger scale than the company had planned. After all, the prototype would have been mostly for the stationkeeping software rather than the rest of the system. Note the following:
* No need to test whether helium would float the strat to whatever altitude. This is demonstrated at every kid's birthday party when a few helium balloons escape and go up until they disappear.
* No need to test whether telecommunications will work from 65,000 feet. Even apart from the 3-mile high jet helicopter tests in summer of 2004, we already know that communications work fine from 22,500 miles and should work better (and with less lag time) from 13 miles.
* No need to test whether solar film can capture energy or whether batteries can store it.
* No need to test whether the ductfan motors will provide force to move the strat aound within its stationkeeping envelope.
No, the prototype was mainly to reassure potential commercial partners and (for that matter) potential investors. What would have been tested at 45,000 feet is whether the stationkeeping software can do its job in maintaining the strat within 2 degrees of its nominal location. Further, 45,000 feet is actually overtesting because of the harsher winds and denser air at 45,000 feet, Given the straightforward nature of the military, I can see a decision to put one ip there at 65,000 feert and use that as the prototype ti decide whether to order a fleet of them.
You think?
Caradoc
You're right: I didn't address core business specifically, just as what gets us to profitability and continues to contribute to that profitability as strat revenues kick in. I suppose I could have mentioned that the core business will itself increase during 2006 and 2007, but assessment of 2008 and beyond remains the same: a boring numbers game with no need to jump out and back in as I sit back and collect dividend checks. At that point, pps will be of interest only because it determines margin available to make quick doubles in pennies.
Speaking of which, I'm ticked that Schwab won't allow margin on GTE until they receive the actual shares. This already limited the amount of OSFT I was able to buy this morning and kept me from being able to get into AMRE at all. Ditto, it's going to keep me from being able to take advantage of today's dip in HISC.
Regards,
Caradoc
A look at the future...
My guess on timing as it applies to revenue/price per share is that we'll arrive at profitability even before strat revenues kick in. By the end of 2005, a decent PE ratio plus speculative value of pending strat revenues has GTE trading in the range of high single-digit dollars to maybe 11 or 12 bucks. Final 2005 price depends on extent to which company's efforts result in investor awareness of the size of those pending revenues.
For timing during 2006/2007, note that Stratellite's various pending revenue streams are independent, not sequential events:
* Sales of strats to Air Force, Army, NASA, and Weather Bureau (now National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA)
* Sales to other nations
* Leasing entire strats to users who require the entire payload and/or want to do their own command and control
* Leasing partial payload (space, weight, power) to those who simply want a ride for their hardware
* And the big one: income from GTE operating its own services (cell phone, broadband internet, etc.) from 65,000 feet.
Any two or three of those revenue streams could kick in during the same week or month and all of the streams should have kicked in within two years. So, once strat revenues begin, profitability is likely to increase sharply as still other strat revenue streams begin to flow. This is important for two reasons:
1. During 2006, just based on having a PE ratio at all, price per share would go to low teens or better depending on how many dollars are flowing.
2. With two or three of the revenue streams flowing, the speculative value of the remaining streams goes up sharply as onlookers realize "Hey, this thing really does work! We really are on a verge of a worldwide paradigm shift." This realization takes GTE to or beyond $20 per share.
The extent to which this realization happens in 2006 versus 2007 doesn't matter much in the long run because mainstream investors don't buy even highly likely speculations and will want to see two years of increasing profitability before getting involved. This means 2008 and it's your guess as to whether these conservative investors climb aboard closer to $20 or $40 per share. After that, price becomes a function of earnings.
One more prediction: as pleased as they will be with price per share in 2008, those who invested during 2005 will be even moreimpressed with what happens when all those revenue streams (literally rivers of money!) are translated into dividend checks.
Just me and my crystal ball,
Caradoc
Good one, Watney! EOM
Z: That may be a consideration, but when anybody rents a hangar at that end of the former base, they get the same gate-coded security so I wouldn't make too much of it.
Caradoc
Unfair competitive advantage?
It may sound strange when looking at a recently "highly risky penny stock" which hasn't yet had its first day of trading on a major exchange, but I see the Stratellite has having such tremendous advantages as a platform for everything from cell phones to broadband internet that there's some risk of being perceived as a monopoly or at least a corporation that needs to be regulated (and/or eventually broken up like Ma Bell). For example, suppose GTE invited cell phone companies to an auction, advising that we're putting up 13 Strats (enough to blanket the 48 contiguous states), that the high bidder at the auction will get cellular exclusive use of 7 Strats of his choosing and that the second-high bidder would get the other 6. Only two winners, and the losers go complain to their congressperson. What happens next?
On the other hand, I'm thinking that if GTE provides its own cellular service rather than leasing payload space/weight/power to existing cellular companies, those companies would continue to market their services and we'd simply be viewed as a another competitor during the period it would take before a disproportionate share of new consumer contracts are being written with the one cellular company that happens to offer reliable cellular service without the "dropouts" that now plague cellular technology.
Note that inertia will keep some people renewing their contracts with their current providers even after the smart money has gone with GTE. Even so, after two or three years we start to look like a de facto monopoly.
Same logic applies to broadband internet. Bottom line is that there are longterm implications of however our company chooses to do its marketing.
Important: I'm not saying it would be bad to own stock in a company so big and powerful that it had to be broken up into six or seven smaller companies since we'd end up holding stock in all of them. But I am saying that's not the route that maximizes return for each of us.
Having chewed on this for a while, my suggestion is that we take a two-pronged approach: (1) put up enough Strats to accomodate everybody who wants to lease space/weight/power (i.e., everybody who wants to remain competitive) and (2) put our own gear aboard to provide the GTE version of cellular or broadband or whatever. Under this scenario, nobody can complain that they're being excluded but all the competitors have higher overhead than the GTE service since their lease payments pay for the Strat (plus some!) and we ride for free. Then we price our service just a tad lower than theirs. Not low enough to drive them out of business. Just low enough to retain a competitive edge while making a larger profit than any of them.
Speaking of profit, my hunch is that those buying GTE in hopes that share price will appreciate similar to what certain technology companies achieved during the 1990s will not be disappointed. What may come as a surprise, though, will be the size of the dividend checks that GTE will be issuing in two or three years.
Meanwhile, as the Sanswire One prototype proves our technology is workable and the first production Strat actually begins to make it work, look for buying pressure initially mostly from those looking for share appreciation followed by even greater buying pressure from those fund managers looking for a long hold on the preeminent utility stock of the 21st century.
Just the way I see it,
Caradoc
The Navy speaks up...
http://www.norad.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.news_rel_04_12_05
ADMIRAL TIMOTHY J. KEATING
FEATURED SPEAKER
21ST NATIONAL SPACE SYMPOSIUM
BROADMOOR INTERNATIONAL CENTER
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005
THINK HOW VALUABLE SPACE-BASED OR NEAR-SPACE SENSORS CAN BE IN TRACKING VESSELS MOVING TOWARD OUR COASTS--OR IN MONITORING HIGHWAY CONDITIONS IN THE EVENT OF A SUDDEN MASS EVACUATION REQUIREMENT. WARNING OF THE INCOMING THREAT IS PIVOTAL TO US AT NORAD AND NORTHERN COMMAND. ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE IS OUR MOST PRESSING CONCERN IN HOMELAND DEFENSE. ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE.
I'M NOT A SPACE EXPERT, SO I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW TO PROVIDE ADVANCED SPACE SYSTEMS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE CHALLENGING--AND THAT THEY ARE EXPENSIVE. I AM TELLING YOU THAT WE NEED THE SPACE COMMUNITY'S HELP IN DEFENDING OUR HOMELAND.
WE NEED TO IMPROVE DETECTION AND DEFENSE AGAINST LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT, CRUISE MISSILES, LOW-OBSERVABLE PLATFORMS. WE NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT SHIPS ARE APPROACHING OUR COASTS, AND WE NEED TO BE COORDINATING THAT INFORMATION WITH ADVANCE GOUGE ON WHAT'S INSIDE THOSE SHIPS.
WE'RE INTERESTED IN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ON THINGS LIKE HIGH-ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES, AND PARTICULARLY THE HIGH ALTITUDE AIRSHIP. IT'S NOT A PANACEA, BUT NORAD IS WORKING WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMBINED DEFENSE TEAM TO GET A PROTOTYPE HIGH ALTITUDE AIRSHIP BUILT AND AIRBORNE. THIS IS 'NEAR-SPACE' WORK, BUT MANY OF YOUR COMPANIES ARE INVOLVED, AND I HOPE YOU PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS REQUIREMENT. YOU HAVE TECHNOLOGIES THAT APPLY TODAY, AND YOU HAVE PROGRAMS IN DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD BE VERY, VERY USEFUL.
Nowhere near comprehensive, but what follows is text of email to buddy in Cleveland. Could be worth relaying to any potential investors who tend to see things from a military perspective.
Caradoc
******text follows*****
Link below has text summarizing what GlobeTel is doing. Even better its internal link to listen to CEO explain it.
> http://www.wallst.net/newsblurb.asp?id=166
Apart from Stratellite being able to provide everything from cell phone coverage to broadband internet cheaper and more reliably than anyone else (and to the "last mile" customers that the competition doesn't even try for), here are a few links to provide insight to use by Army and Air Force:
Air Force Space Command quotes Air Force Chief of Staff General John Jumper on why we need a presence in "near space" (i.e., 65,000 feet and up):
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-05g.html
More from Jumper: http://www.afa.org/magazine/April2005/0405headwinds.asp
excerpts:
Jumper cited the problem of exploiting “near space” as a perfect recent example of “bad effects-based thinking.”
By “near space,” he refers to the physical realm above 65,000 feet altitude (the highest point for powered aircraft flight) but below 984,000 feet (the lowest point for orbital spaceflight).
As Jumper sees it, the thinking of most pilots reaches a limit at 65,000 feet, while space operators care little about what happens below 984,000 feet. This kind of thinking leaves a vast “no man’s land,” between air and space, which remains unexploited, even though it could be used to great advantage for potentially little cost.The kind of vehicle needed for near-space operations is not pretty. “It looks like a big dirigible,” said Jumper. “It’s full of gas or something, and it’s hard to get off the ground.” Still, he went on, near-space vehicles can stay aloft for months and can carry high-demand communications and surveillance capabilities.
Still more from Jumper (and even more blunt. Gotta love this guy.) http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/events/050128presentations/General_Jumper_Presentation.pdf
excerpt from middle of page 3:
Now the concept of near space is an almost perfect example
of platformcentric thinking and why we haven't exploited this.
To guys like me who wear wings, we don't think of anything above
65,000 feet because there's not enough air molecules to make
motors run. Space guys don't think about it because it's below
300 kilometers which is about the lowest you can go and make
something work.
So what is involved is a no-man's land where if you think
about it the right way you can put lighter than air sort of
machines up there that can hover for months and months and give
you the persistence that you otherwise try to get with a fossil
fuel flying thing or an orbiting thing. With the orbiting thing,
if you're going to really be able to get coverage around the
[inaudible], you need to have about 40 or 50 of these satellites
in low orbit, and with the airborne thing you need to be able to
get there.
The reason we don't like this space between 65,000 feet and
300 kilometers is that it takes a large ungainly poopy bag sort
of thing that nobody likes to deal with on the ground, inflate
it, and get it up there to do its work. There's nothing sexy
about it.
So we tend to stick with our platformcentric thinking and
we've sort of abandoned that part. Well, we're going to unabandon
it and we're going to get ourselves in there. We're
going to use it for networking as substitutes for low orbiting
satellite constellations, use it to hook up, if we can, what the
Army and the Marines are trying to do, digitize themselves on the
ground, be able to do things like operationalize transformational
coms and deal with the most difficult problem we have with
transformational coms and that is getting all that information to
ships at sea and to people in foxholes. This is the way that
we'll be able to break that down. And it comes about because you
take this integration of what's flying, what's in orbit, and what
can be in near space and what's on the ground, and you put these
things together in self-forming, self-[inaudible] networks in
ways that everybody has a picture of what's going on.
Space Command's four-star General Lance Lord's statement to Senate Armed Services Committee:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=15798
This is a long one since it covers literally everything Space Command is doing, so here are two paragraphs from ~3/4 down:We are very excited about exploring capabilities in the area known as "Near Space" at an altitude between 65,000 to 325,000 feet. From our preliminary analysis, we believe there's substantial military utility in augmenting our current aerospace capabilities with fielded capabilities in Near Space. These Near Space platforms are not intended to replace air or space assets, but rather to help augment and integrate additional capabilities.We have already demonstrated military utility in expanding the range of Army radios used for contact between ground forces and to conduct Close Air Support operations. By using affordable platforms like weather balloons, blimps or air ships, we can help provide much needed persistence and direct support to our theater commanders and their joint warfighters.
Space Review's assessment of near space (some pro, some con):
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/230/1
Al Jazeerah (maybe not happy about it?) reports that CSAF Gneral John Jumper says US Air Force is working with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop a stealthy aircraft without metal that could be equipped with special sensors and remain in the air for months at a time.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CCE21042-9632-4D8B-9A15-5CD8B5468C4F.htm
Good thing that after the prototype we're switching from aluminum to composite material for Stratellite's framework. You think maybe more than a coincidence? I don't suppose Huff could say anything about it if we were working with DARPA or anyone else in a big hangar in Nevada.