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.
trunkmonk, you're the one who stated Helium was 100% safe. You also now state that Helium has no hazardous properties.
I hate to burst your bubble, but all gases (even inert ones) can displace Oxygen and can asphyxiate a person. I'd call that hazardous. Stick your head inside the airship filled with Helium for a few minutes, and while you're enjoying the nice colorless, odorless and inert properties of the gas, see how long you last before you pass out. Please ensure your will is up to date first.
I'll drop this as this discussion is going nowhere.
Using your logic, then Hydrogen is 100% safe as well. It's only what man does with it that makes it dangerous, like exposing it to flame or a spark.
I suppose that man working at the top of the room where the Helium leak exists is 100% safe too... as long as he holds his breath. Breathing, after all, is something man does with the air in the room. That's like saying there can be no displacement of breathable Oxygen as long as the man chooses not to inhale. Yes, 100% safe, until the man passes out and dies from lack of Oxygen.
Nothing is 100% safe. The water we drink can drown us, infect us with diseases or parasites, or poison us if we drink too much of it. The only way something can be close to 100% safe is if it remains isolated from us and we never use it for any purpose. That's my point. Using Helium in some application such as leak testing or as a lift gas in a UAV is not without its own risks.
I have to disagree. Helium is not 100% safe. Try dropping a standard bottle of Helium where the valve breaks off, and the bottle becomes a missile hazard, likely killing anyone in its path.
If someone is working near the ceiling or in the top area of a building, and there's a Helium leak, the rising gas will displace Oxygen and can asphyxiate workers just as easily as any other gas that displaces Oxygen in an enclosed space.
Inert only means it isn't chemically reactive with other elements or materials. There are still dangers associated with the gas related to how it is stored or other characteristics of the gas.
I already suggested that in a later post. If that's the case, why didn't they include a bullet item for endurance under normal conditions of stationkeeping over a specific area? At least that would show the range of capabilities of the platform.
Maybe they're relying on shareholders to provide feedback for oversights such as this one.
I think runandadd's point is that if it's gonna take another 2 or 3 years of testing and demonstrating products to get a product sold, this company won't survive. The company has been demonstrating products to interested parties for many years and to date still hasn't sold anything. The SkySat sale to GTC doesn't count.
It's clear the only funding the company can get at this point is vulture/death spiral financing with terms that leave things wide open for the share price to be driven into the dirt if the lender chooses to do so.
I understand the contract process is slow, but if there truly are parties interested in our products, they'd better pick up the pace or risk not having a company to purchase from. Seriously, how many more years will it take to sell some airships?
That doesn't make sense. If they modified the engine to run on gasoline, then the segments normally filled with fuelgas could be filled with helium, thereby increasing the payload capacity of the platform far above the current maximum of 30 pounds.
cpmac, I'm referring to the specs stated for the Argus One airship, not the BIB.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78148179
The anticipated selling price for the Argus One was reported to be around 2-3 million dollars. That's a lot for a platform with 8 hour endurance. We've been led to believe the endurance was A LOT longer based on what is published on the WSGI website.
I feel like I've been punched in the gut with what I consider to be a serious limitation of the platform. It's bad enough the payload is limited to 30 pounds, and I understand why, but only 8 hours endurance?
If this endurance is based on the airship traveling full speed for an 8-hour period covering 250 miles @ 31 mph, that might explain it. Normal operation with stationkeeping over a target area wouldn't involve this kind of long-distance travel and normal operational endurance might actually be several days as previously described. But if that's the case, why only state the most limiting condition here? Why not list both cases for endurance? Who is making these boneheaded decisions in the company? Do they know anything at all about marketing or selling their product?
What's up with the 8 hour endurance? I thought the Argus was supposed to be capable of several days on station, depending on payload and operating conditions. Was this serious underperformance (compared to previous expectations) discovered during the testing in Arizona/Nevada?
Is anyone really going to pay an estimated $2M to $3M each for only 8 hour endurance? I hope I'm not the only shareholder who is concerned over this disturbing revelation. I had much higher hopes for the capabilities of the Argus.
The following statement appears in the Argus description on WSGI's website: The Argus One is designed to have a several day endurance capability and can stay on station with its module designed body, propulsion system and its sensor operated rigidity stabilization system, even in rough weather.
http://www.wsgi.com/argus.php
WTF?
Where does one register on the WSGI website? All I find is a page to send an inquiry.
http://www.wsgi.com/contact.php
You're making the assumption we get airship contracts, or significantly higher (orders of magnitude higher) revenues from GTC operations when making that prediction.
That hasn't happened yet, and is by no means something that should be assumed.
I don't care what unbridled enthusiasm exists in the market. It won't help this stock unless contracts are realized and revenue generation ramps up considerably.
trunkmonk, the $1.00 per share wasn't my idea, it was WildWest's. I don't believe I'll see that in my lifetime. Feel free to chastise me if I'm proven wrong on this.
If this stock ever gets to $1.00 per share without a reverse split, I'll take a long overdue vacation.
Nando reported: There WILL NOT BE A REVERSE SPLIT at least until the share price is substantially higher to get on the NASDQ.
I was not at the SHM, but I am assuming Nando wouldn't have included this part of the statement unless it was stated at the meeting.
So don't tell me NO Reverse Split. Open your eyes.
So there it is... acceptance that a reverse split will be okay once we reach a certain revenue. I knew I'd see it sooner or later.
Last year Clark and Estrella stated no reverse split, and those who had suggested otherwise were ridiculed as being angry and not being realistic. Now it appears that option will be back on the table at some point. I expect I'll now begin to see other shareholders suggesting it can be a good thing. The Force Protection RS didn't end well for many shareholders in the end. The company was acquired at a price well below where many had purchased. Calling Force Protection a successful RS is a joke, IMO.
If they get revenues to a point to even consider a reverse split, I'm out, whatever the share price may be at that time. Yes, NASDAQ brings attention and price stability in theory... until the delisting comes and then we're no better off than before the RS. Lots of companies RS to get on NASDAQ, and lots of companies get delisted from NASDAQ.
Your thoughtful post reminds me of a humorous excerpt from Bill Bryson's "The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid".
SPRINGFIELD, IL. (AP) - The State Senate of Illinois yesterday disbanded its Committee on Efficiency and Economy "for reasons of efficiency and economy".
- Des Moines Tribune, 6 February, 1955
As someone else already stated, your "scam" angle is wearing very thin. I suppose you will claim these revenues were fabricated just like they were by Huff and crew who are now residing in prison.
Time for a new hobby, or getting a life, isn't it?
The revenues are reported to include the Space Florida contract money paid on delivery of the data package. How much was that again? $200K or $250K?
That was a one-time boost, but even without it the revenues doubled from last quarter. Let's hope the trend continues and accelerates due to the returning operation status of the GSAT satellites.
As I understand it, funding resulting from stock sales would appear in a different part of the income statement than revenues. Revenues are the funds generated from sale of good and services and are in a separate category, and would not include any LJ funds received.
If in doubt, one can look at any of their previous income statements and see how it's broken down separately.
Doesn't feel like a play on wording, but an actual definable increase in revenues. Will the share price move higher based on that? I won't hold my breath.
Maybe they'll be serving drinks at the SHM. Investors will have to BYOB, but at least a good buzz will soften the blow when it becomes evident there's no real direction for where the company is headed.
I predict this meeting will be nothing more than what was mandated by the SEC, with the shareholder vote for those items stated in the proxy and our CEO regurgitating what has already been announced, and concluding with thanking shareholders for their continued support.
And then a few weeks after the SHM, we get to see the record revenues in the quarterly filing. Really hoping we are surprised by those, but I have a sinking feeling in my gut it won't change anything.
Yeah, I get worked up and protest.
Sorry, very late and little sleep. Going to remedy that now. I'm confident all we've discussed tonight will be deleted by the time I wake up.
What does only being here since January have to do with anything? How about giving your overactive imagination a rest?
I read iHub for a while before ever posting. I created this account mainly so I could post about DEAC, but there's little volume in that stock and not much board activity, so I post here most of the time.
I also read RB and Yahoo. I also check out the company website for any updates. Most of what is posted on RB and Yahoo is garbage, total garbage. That's why I post here and not there. Yes I do read them and occasionally I see something that makes it worth the time. Most of the time it's just for entertainment. I guess that opens me up to being any number of unscrupulous characters.
And by the way, I remember seeing a couple of posts here about the RB posts. I don't believe that is warp, but who am I to suggest such a thing, since I've only been here since January?
My only agenda is to make a profit on this investment. Recent trends don't give me hope that's going to be the likely outcome. Like everyone else, I'm just hoping things are coming to turn this around. If it breaks 2 cents, I'll probably sell out just to take the loss and recover something.
Haven't you been keeping up? Warp is posting over on RB. Maybe someone can use their great detective skills and figure out who that really is.
Lots of people claim to have pretty good clues, trying to piece together bits of info based on their rudimentary detective skills and overactive imaginations. I have posted on another iHub board for a company where RB is the IR director. Because of his former association with SNSR/WSGI, some claimed I was him. Others claimed I was working with RM and HW to somehow destroy the share price. That was really imaginative, since it was reported here that RM was a potential board candidate and spoke very favorably about management at the last SHM.
While I am entertained by these claims, I also understand shareholders are unhappy with their investment and will seek to blame anyone but themselves or create all kind of scenarios where others are working to destroy the company. Why not blame management? I still see many defending them and trying to shift blame to anyone but them.
I blame myself for making this investment. No one posted or talked me into it. I saw it as a risk, just as I see DEAC as a risk. I'm still above water on that one, and hope it works out several years down the road. If not, I will blame myself, but like WSGI I do believe those involved are actually trying to make it work. Whether they have the ability to succeed, or whether the technology will work as intended, that's another matter. Only time will tell.
So believe whatever you want, and I'll continue to be entertained while hoping for a recovery in the share price.
Still holding, like an idiot. But I'm not who you think I am, so it doesn't really matter, does it?
Not Warp, RM, RB, HW, or anyone else claimed. Continue to be amazed at the imaginations around here, as well as the conspiracy theories floated here... shareholders trying to suppress share price by dumping... secret contracts in works where nothing can be said by management... airships taken "black". Get the picture?
Good point. We've already seen a couple of contracts where no revenue or dollar amount is stated. And I do believe he is buying shares. Maybe they'll figure out a way to tout these record revenues we're expecting without actually publishing an actual number. Wouldn't surprise me.
Oh, great. The guy who has been announcing his opinion that contracts were imminent for years now. Just the person we need reporting objectively, someone buying all they can. The company will love serving their kool aid to such an investor. It is kool aid this year, not bottled water, right?
Are you attending? Is there anyone here who will be reporting back?
Ok, so we're back to that again. Whatever, too tired to argue this anymore. Believe whatever you want. Or go over to RB and read his posts there, or whoever is claiming to be him. Why does anyone care?
I expect to see a SHM cancellation any day now just for that reason. Would make things much easier for management not to have to answer any questions or deal with angry shareholders.
How about we blame the failure on previous management? That's always gets good traction as an excuse.
Or maybe we can blame it on those insidious shareholders (or former shareholders) who are endlessly dumping shares to sink the share price. Can we now include Clark in that group since he is no longer part of the company and will no longer have reporting requirements?
Someone help me out. Give us some more excuses as to why the share price is where it's at. Can't be because of this professional management team, right? Maybe the shorters?
I wonder if there will be ANY shareholders present to ask any hard questions? Seems everyone is disillusioned with this company and no one has any interest in attending.
Is there anyone posting here who is actually going?
My prediction has something to do with the fact we have $17 million in debt, 451 million shares issued, little or no cash to speak of, and a $5 million funding arrangement that burns through available shares at a high rate. At this point I don't believe slowly improving revenues will lift this share price. Maybe once revenues are enough to become profitable, but we're a long way from that.
Also, it appears we're back to the drawing board on the airship models. Maybe there is real interest in the hybrid model, but if that involves starting the testing round over again, it may be many months or even several years before we gain a contract. I don't think this company will survive that long, or at least the current management will hang around that long. JMO
Let's hope your prediction comes to pass.
Shareholders have been reading between the lines for years, in every sentence the company puts out, hoping and praying something grand is about to be announced. So far, hasn't happened.
Something is definitely in the works, I'll agree with that. Maybe it's millions in revenue from GTC. Maybe it's an airship contract. Maybe it's moving the airship somewhere else for yet another 6-12 months of testing. Or maybe it's GE or BJ resigning and moving on to greener pastures. Or maybe Phipps will tire of writing the checks now that Clark is gone, and will find a way to dissolve and back out of the GTC merger.
Something is definitely up. I predict there will be record revenues, but they will be so uninspiring the share price will actually drop following the announcement. Let's see if they can prove me wrong. I've been sizing up my mouth, and I think my foot will fit in there if needed.
And I predict the new Chairman will actually open his mouth and say a few words to shareholders at the SHM. The question is, can he blow sunshine up the shareholders skirts as well as Clark, enough to keep them holding their shares for another year?
I don't think they're crooks. Incompetent maybe, at least in running a company like Sanswire/WSGI. WarpCore left because he got a glimpse of how Estrella handles business (the FEMA initial contact) and it seems he wasn't willing to continue sharing his views with people who labeled him a liar. It's rumored he sold out, but no one really knows. Who cares? He hasn't posted since last SHM. I'm more concerned with what Raymer Maguire is doing with his shares. He still hasn't joined the board, nor has Phipps filled his 2 board seats. That also suggests problems, in my opinion.
The crap over on RB is just that. Crap. Someone impersonating someone else. We've seen it before.
Whatever the reasons for Clark leaving, I can't believe it was part of some planned exit as some here have speculated. If that was the plan, he would have made some closing remarks as he passed the torch. The fact he said nothing tells us all we need to know. I'm not drinking that Kool Aid.
You want balance? I can't provide that. If they sell one airship for $2 million, that equates to less than half a cent per share of revenue, and it's likely that won't even push them into profitability.
I don't see them selling more than a couple of airships in the first contract, if it ever comes. Is anyone going to risk a sizable contract on a company that has no engineering staff or no current capability to manufacture these airships? Yes, I'm sure that can all be worked out in time given enough money, but the point is that initial contracts are likely to be pretty small, and with the large number of shares outstanding, I doubt the share price will pop as high as many here dream of if an airship contract is announced.
I don't know how much it may rise. I'll guess it may hit 25 cents, and then a huge sell-off will have it coming to rest at 10 to 15 cent range.
I have more faith in my estimate of 1 cent without an airship contract than I do in my guess of where it may wind up on the upside with a contract. If I'm wrong on the downside and the share price is higher. we can all be pleased. If I'm wrong on the upside and it goes much higher, we can all be pleased again.
My target price in 6 months is 1 cent, if they haven't signed an airship contract by then.
moosh, I came across a post you made 5 months ago concerning Estrella's resume that was posted online. You spoke with BJ and she claimed Estrella did not submit that resume. The claim was it was made up by someone, presumably trying to harm the company or Estrella's image. Not sure if that claim was from you or BJ.
It's been 5 months since this was brought to the company's attention. It seems reasonable that during those 5 months the company would have taken steps to get this "fake" resume removed from the site. Any current or potential shareholder doing some background recon on Estrella might conclude that our CEO is shopping for a new job and things might not be going well within the company. Also, as was pointed out here, the resume includes statements of fundings that have not been disclosed to the SEC or shareholders. Shouldn't that be a problem for the company regardless of whether this resume is legitimate or fraudulent?
Even if the company were taking legal action to ascertain who posted the resume, shouldn't the first action be to have it removed? Yet, 5 months after it was brought to the company's attention, Estrella's resume is still posted there.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/103738351/Resume-Wizard
Makes me wonder if that resume WAS posted by Estrella and he is testing the waters as part of his exit strategy.
"Don't listen to others, listen to ME!!!" Is that how it is?
Why would I or anyone else care what your opinion is? How many years have you claimed airship contracts were near? Do we have any airship contracts? NO
See my point?
If Mr. Bocchichio was barking to high heaven about the future prospects of the company, that would be a good thing too, right?
Maybe Mr. Bocchichio is quiet because there's nothing happening with the company worth mentioning.
And maybe, just maybe, Clark is working to secure some business on behalf of the company, behind the scenes... quietly. That must be why he departed so quietly, because he intends to work behind the scenes and stir up some contracts or additional funding, right?
Yeah, but all this was planned months in advance according to some here.
I need a good hallucinogen. Maybe if I use a little I can be happy with the company's progress and share price, and things will seem as if all this is part of the bigger plan.