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.
Add to that the possibility of news from the mediation hearing held last Friday. The mediator has 5 days to report any results to the court.
"THE MEDIATION CONFERENCE in this matter shall be held with David H.
Lichter, Esq., on
August 14, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at 18305 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 402,
Aventura, Florida.
This date has been agreed to by the Mediator and the Parties and shall
not be rescheduled without
leave of Court.
Within five (5) days following the mediation conference, the mediator
shall file a Mediation
Report indicating whether all required parties were present. The
report shall also indicate whether
the case settled (in full or in part), was continued with the consent
of the parties, or whether the
mediator declared an impasse.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 23rd day of June,
2009"
I am not sure about the extra engines either. I would think that would be contrary to the "vector thrust" propulsion system that is part of the design and is mounted to the head on some kind of gimble swivel? Plus the segmented "tail" which is filled with the light as air fuelgas would not be able to support the added weight...all the lifting is in the heluim filled head. Just my 2 cents.
Maybe this is the reason? Could we be involved at all?
CAPITAL CURRENTS: Mobile Satellite Service: Back from the dead?
By Jeffrey Krauss, President of Telecommunications and Technology
Policy
CedMagazine.com - May 01, 2009
http://www.cedmagazine.com/Article-Capital-Currents-050109.aspx
Many Thanks! I totally missed that batch. 94 pages of weekend reading fun.
coastie, which court doc did this one come from? I downloaded the PACER docs as well and could not find it. Thanks in advance.
"On another occasion, between about May 1, 2004 and about December 31, 2004, the proceeds from a loan or stock sale by GlobeTel’s current chairman of about $500,000 was deposited in the bank account for GlobeTel’s subsidiary in Brazil. Huff transferred this money to GlobeTel and directed Jimenez to credit it to GlobeTel’s accounts receivable as if it were a payment by a customer who utilized GlobeTel’s telecom network in Brazil."
Thanks, bagelboy!
12/11/08 - GTC Expands Scope Of Interest And Requests Sanswire Provide UAV Capability Study
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL - DECEMBER 11, 2008 - Sanswire Corp. (Pink Sheets: SNSR) today announced that the company has delivered an additional UAV study following the initial payload integration study prepared for Global Telesat Corp. (GTC), a provider of satellite-based tracking and monitoring services and satellite-based airtime to government and commercial end users. This overall capabilities study was requested due to GTC’s heightened interest in joint venture Sanswire-TAO’s, original study regarding its lighter than air (LTA) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) solution.
Jonathan Leinwand CEO of Sanswire Corp stated, "We’re pleased to deliver on this follow up request from GTC for additional information regarding our capabilities. This second study further illustrates our ability to provide an unmanned platform for communications and persistent surveillance, following the first study which focused specifically on payload integration. We look forward to integrating our technologies with GTC and expanding our business opportunities."
GTC continues to evaluate Sanswire-TAO’s two recent studies for technical collaboration purposes as well as business opportunity discussions with GTC clients. With this additional request for a supplemental study, the company extended additional time for GTC’s option to further invest in Sanswire Corp. The second study focused on Sanswire-TAO’s Mid and High Altitude program and illustrated the uniqueness and capabilities of Sanswire-TAO.
The basis for the study was to contrast the unique approach of the Sanswire-TAO joint venture in adopting its patented lighter than air, non-rigid, segmented cell airship design, which differs greatly from the heavier than air "flying wing" or rigid blimp-like vehicles. It also covered:
• Endurance and propulsion through the recently filed patent application for Sanswire-TAO’s
segmented airship equipped with energy medium.
• Proprietary autonomous flight control system implemented into the segmented cell vehicles.
• The dual phased approach for immediately available medium endurance vehicles and future
concepts for long endurance vehicles that utilize environmentally-friendly energy solutions.
About Sanswire
Sanswire Corp. develops and provides an integrated suite of aerospace communications products and services, leveraging its relationships with leaders in UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) technologies. Sanswire Corp. is focused on the design and construction of various aerial vehicles, capable of carrying payloads that provide persistent surveillance and security solutions at various altitudes. For additional information, please visit www.sanswire.com.
About Sanswire-TAO Corp.
Sanswire-TAO exclusively owns and markets all the technology and intellectual property associated with TAO's lighter than air (LTA) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), including the Stratellite(tm) high-altitude airships, the SAS-51 low-altitude airships, the mid-altitude SkySat airship category, and the PADDS Precision Air Drop Delivery System in the US, Canada and Mexico. Sanswire-TAO Corp. is jointly owned by TAO Technologies GmbH and Sanswire Corp. Visit www.sanswiretao.com
About Global Telesat Corp.
GTC provides satellite airtime and tracking services to government and defense industry end users and are partnered with resellers of leading satellite network providers such as Globalstar, Inmarsat, Iridium and Thuraya. GTC specializes in satellite tracking services and owns a number of network infrastructure devices containing the signal processing technology that powers the Globalstar Simplex Data Service. GTC’s equipment is installed in various ground stations across South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. For more information regarding GTC, please visit GTC’s website at www.gtc-usa.com
Certain statements in this release constitute forward-looking statements or statements which may be deemed or construed to be forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The words "forecast," "project," "intend," "expect" "should," "would," and similar expressions and all statements, which are not historical facts, are intended to identify forwardlooking statements. These forward-looking statements involve and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, including an ongoing formal investigation by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission and delayed filings of quarterly results, any of which could cause the Company's previously reported actual results, performance (finance or operating) to change or differ from future results, performance (financing and operating) or achievements, including those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The Company assumes no, and hereby disclaims any, obligation to update the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.
warp...are you still accumulating? EOM
nil and Bare..you guys have better eyes than I. I was looking at the avg daily share vol....
I'd better leave the short reporting to nil - lol.....
lol - well, they are on the ASK this AM at .058.
Short interest was reported this AM and looks to be down 300k+.
nil, I hope the filings can shed some light on the current state of the program.
Another thought is that increased emphasis on the segmented design and energy medium of the AirChain may yield lower altitude versions. The old vids from the Palmdale hangar demo and the published doc from Dr. Kroplin showed multiple version of varying size and capabilities.
From the July 1 PR:
"Flight demonstrations of the SAS-51 airship with a live video surveillance package, lightweight compact autonomously controlled vehicles, and multiple “AirChain” prototypes illustrating the inherent flight properties of the segmented cell design in flight"
So, while a stratospheric version has a website date of 2009, lower altitude versions could be a possible recipient of current attention and funding for the GTC/GSAT study.
The earlier discussions about Hudson maybe relevent to the short interest numbers when they come out.
Also, maybe a little OT, but I noticed this article referencing a top performing news letter based on the stars.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Star-performer-relies-stars/story.aspx?guid=%7B86972C29%2DCF1F%2D4527%2D87B8%2DFCF4D3FC86BC%7D
Destan, I can't argue with what you picked up from the website. Yes, it does look like the stratospheric flight test is now sometime in 2009. I don't think there is any question that the change was deliberate since that line and date from the webpage has been brought up before. I think it's first appearance said Nov 2008, then a general date sometime in 2008. Now it says 2009. Elsewhere on the website, 2010 is the intended date for commercialization and that has remained the same.
I can't really add anything other than speculation and an opinion about what we might need to look out for:
1) If the company intends to keep current with 2008 filings, I believe the due date for the 10Q for 2008 Q3 is sometime soon. 11/10 or 11/14 based on SNSR being an accelerated or non-accelerated filer - maybe someone else can chime in here as to their status. We may see an NT10-Q to designate a late filing as well.
It would be good to see them roll all of 2008 into the filing and become current. They are close to catching up with their filings and it would be a good sign if they can start off on the right foot with compliance occurring on a designated due date.
2) I have made requests for additional info regarding the Airchain/Skydragon/Strat design and why we have not seen any additional video on the design. I have received polite and prompt responses regarding the fact that the unique design gives them limited ability to disclose much about the ship.
I am also under the impression that the "energy medium" is a new and different approach from what has been published on the Stuttgart site.
It would seem that Dr. K wants his intellectual property protected. The basic research I have done on patents leads me to believe that there is an 18 month grace period before the patent is available in the public domain so searching for the filing has come up empty.
Destan, I think you mentioned being from Germany. Can you provide any information about Dr. Kroplin's work with the University of Stuttgart or TAO?
3) Regarding GTC and Globalstar. They can't dislose much about the relationship due to their nature. I have not been able to get any info about what platform(s) they are interested in using or how they are going to use them. We know they made a modest 50K investment and can make more substantial investments by 11/15 and 12/15 of 2008. If they do this, that will help affirm the technology.
A company such as SNSR, in need of funding, should concentrate on what gives them the best chance to do so. I speculate that this is probably why the date for a stratospheric flight test has been changed again - so they can concentrate on what will bring in funding near-term.
4) Skysat - aka S2A from Palmdale would seem to be on the backburner for now. I am deducing this from a response that told me the concentration is on the segmented design and new energy medium. This makes sense - why file a patent - the first time done in the company's history - unless you weren't serious about getting the technology developed?
jet,
on 9/22/05 didn't this stock hit 1.14 ? If you were fortunate to be a buyer around this area and sold near the 4's at the end of 2005, that is quite a bit of price appreciation.
The point is, this stock has a volatile past, but there were plenty of opportunities to make a good deal of money, but you had to be watching and willing to trade. Buy and hold was not the way to play this one.
Cole, I will agree with Mide that it is somewhere in between and Warpcore's post is spot on and could not have been stated any better.
I am speculating that the price will be worth more in the future than it is today. The price might appreciate on speculation or fundamentals - we do not know if and when a higher price might occur.
If they can accomplish persistent, stratospheric flight then I do believe the company will be worth more than it is now and the stock will be worth more than .045.
The thing about your smoke and mirrors scenario is that you don't know for certain that it is a sham until after the fact. By then, some people have already exited and others are left to watch their investment evaporate - look at the carnage in the market today - SNSR is not the only stock that has caused some significant losses.
The great thing about this board is that you and others are here to provide a counterpoint to my speculative optimism. It will be interesting to see which of your scenarios comes closer to SNSR's eventual outcome.
Cole, you said....
It's amazing what mezmerizing power this company still has over many of their shareholders. I believe the company's own Chairman once referred to it as "cult-like".
I think your last few posts epitomize this mentality as your ability to summarize so much information was quite a feat.
Should this company turn itself around, many will be able to look back at the summaries you provided to appreciate such an accomplishment.
cygnus, mide did respond. You chose to ignore what he was trying to tell you.
If you want to provide an explanation of the differences between beneficial holders vs. registered holders of the common stock, the board might benefit from your insight.
nilremerlin,
From the various PR's, it seems that GTC and Globalstar are looking for a solution to solve the problem of incomplete or spotty system coverage. I am assuming this is caused by signal strength limitations imposed by the terrain surrounding current ground stations or the inability to locate a physical ground station structure in the middle of a mountain, ocean, or hostile area. Also, what happens if a ground station loses operational capability?
Locating the functionality of a ground station in the sky overcomes the terrain limitations. There are also many advantages of being able to move the surrogate ground station as the assets move such as in a military operation.
Need a ground station in a remote area hit by disaster or Syria won't let you build one in their backyard? No problem, just fly one in for a spell.
Now, there is that issue of proving SNSR and TAO have developed a persistent solution, and I wonder which platform(s) are being evaluated for the task?
When was the last time a non-affiliated equipment manufacturer gave us money in consideration for testing our equipment with theirs? I find that to be somewhat significant as well.
Link from Sanswire.com website....more exposure EOM
http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=717307593
I find it encouraging that someone is thinking .105 per share plus warrants is a fair deal when the price is at .05
Does this qualify as a "defined" source of funding that some have said did not exist?
Thanks, Warp, it looks like the link is fixed.
It's nice to know they took the time to make a weekend fix.
les, the current count is 6.
They still had other staff on board like Monterosso, Khoury, Murch, etc. at the beginning of the year and that is probably what accounted for the additional payroll.
risk, I believe the 11M was the older TAO deal which was rewritten to include the JV and a lower amount of guaranteed money (Note 13).
Jet, it did make it big when the stock price was close to $4. You can't say the opportunity did not present itself to make some money at many points along the way.
Compared to the recent action in the rest of the market, this stock has been relatively stable.
From the dissertation, it looks like the simulator pegs the station keeping duration at 5 - 9 days at 20 KM altitude.
Shorter duration in the winter and longer in the summer based on wind conditions over Europe.
Interesting engineering plan - the power from the independent hydrogen power plants housed within the segments are only directed to the individual propellers, as needed, in order to maximize efficiency.
Thanks, BB. Very interesting link.
http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2008/3581/
High altitude platforms are one alternative to replace ground-bounded relay stations for telecommunication purposes. Already in service are such concepts like tethered balloons or stratospheric airplanes in the field of surveillance, for example to patrol borders. Disadvantages of those concepts are either to disturb the airspace by the wire or to be constricted in terms of mission endurance. Thus, untethered high altitude airships with long mission endurance are currently in the focus of research. One basic requirement for telecommunication platforms is to remain in a fix positioning frame over ground. Therefore wind speed has to be compensated by the propulsion system of the airship. The scope of this work is to investigate the drive and power generation system of a multiple-unit airship. The reduced rigidness of the hull and the resulting lower structural weight yield a higher load capacity and hence increase the mission length by larger fuel reserves. The drawbacks of this configuration are higher stabilization demands and distributed drive units. This leads to a rather complex propulsion system for which a real-time simulation model is provided.
Besides electrical driven propellers, the system involves gas turbines and generators to work as power plants, back-up batteries, power-electronics and distribution. Those power plants reflect the state of the art and are thus rather conservative compared to other propulsion concepts for high altitude platforms. The advantage of splitting up the power generation into multiple units is to run only as much power plants as currently required and for this reason, to save energy. In addition, an involvement of the back-up battery reduces the ineffective operation of a power plant in part load. Another reason to employ a battery system is that highly dynamic power requirements, caused for example by a gust of wind, cannot be covered immediately by the power plants. The maximum discharge power of the back-up battery is at level with the maximum power output of one power plant. It is available at any time. As a result, the dynamic properties of the system can be plainly improved.
The simulation model of the propulsion system is built-on independent modules. Single component models may easily be modified or exchanged by enhanced component models. Thus, single component models are equipped with their own control devices. Beyond, the overall propulsion system controls comprise routines to decide whether a single power plant is operated or not. This decision depends on the status of charge of the back-up battery. The lack of knowledge regarding the dynamic of stratospheric wind speed turns out to be of great disadvantage. Most of the control routines that decide a start-up or shut-down of a power plant require a short-term wind forecast. With a time resolution of currently six hours, available wind data doesn't contain this information. Here, a probably high wind dynamic is taken into account. The involvement of the back-up battery is thus mainly limited to cover dynamic power requirements. The potential to optimize the power plant efficiency is thus not yet fully exploited.
Achievable mission endurance at a given amount of fuel is a result of seasonal wind speed. Over middle Europe, wind speed is at a minimum during summer and at a maximum during the winter months. At summer, the mission endurance that has been achieved by simulations lays around nine days. This may be prolonged by a greater use of the back-up battery. During winter, the mission endurance is limited to five to seven days. All stationary power requirements can be covered by the propulsion system. For high propulsion efficiencies big propeller rotor diameters have been implemented. The resulting mass inertia is impeding acceleration and thus delaying the coverage of dynamic thrust requirements. Big diameters combined with little stationary power requirements are only one example for the challenges in the development of high altitude applications. With the given simulation model one possible solution for the drive and power generation system of a lighter-than-air high altitude platform has been worked out.
FWIW, my last look on PACER showed:
1) Lynch was "terminated" from the case documentation on 9/10/08. We know he settled months ago, in principal, with the SEC, and agreed to certain stipulations barring him from certain practices, but we're unaware of the dollar amount which was to be decided by the court at a later date.
There was no other indication of why he was terminated, but barring any other explanation, I am going to assume that he paid his fine.
IF Lynch settled, maybe GTEM will be given the opportunity as well. We know they met to discuss a possible settlement, but we have not heard a peep since.
2) The lawyers for Joe and Luis were trying to get their case dismissed, but the judge denied this yesterday. They are due to be deposed in Oct and Nov respectively.
Destan, you are right. I looked and it seems like they are making some subtle changes. Sanswire logo is prominently displayed on the main page now.
Like Warp said, we knew it was coming, but we were unsure of the timing.
Thanks, Sami and Swami. Swami, I was wondering if you had an opinion on payload capacity for the Strat/Worm variety of airship?
SAS-51 seems to be designed for a payload of 20 - 30lbs or so based on the parameters of the LOE and info from the Stuttgart site.
Low-altitude recon seems to be it's purpose based on the vids from the Stuttgart test.
The Strat/Airchain design seeks to distance itself from the traditional airship design. Through it's cell based design, it possesses a lighter weight, lower drag, flexible model design that will, hopefully, allow the team to repeatedly reach the stratosphere, stay there for a length of time, and return to earth. There is a newly patented power source/management system which we don't know much about, although older docs from the Stuttgart site alluded to a liquid hydrogen power source I think.
I agree with your crawl before running analogy as the focus has changed from providing nationwide broadband to more of a specific military/security application of a less persistent nature which probably equates to smaller payload requirements.
So, with all the emphasis on design going toward reaching the stratosphere, what can be said about it's payload capacity? Do you think the design is scalable and rigid enough to carry some hefty cargo or do you feel that there might be some eventual limitations?
Maybe the answer is really, who cares how much it can carry as long as it can carry a payload to accomplish its task? They did talk about modeling software that could be used to customize the design based upon specific needs.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks, imawswami. I found this other article from June. I could not perform a reliable translation, but it looks like they relocated to Kagiswil and plan on building a production facility for the X-Station by 2010.
http://www.iow.ch/modules/.template/files/5e97436a21c0a993252cd5b93ef84261-NLZ_20080626.pdf
The test was apparently done in a non-isolated area due to the presence of hikers and bikers. What sort of scrutiny would be given to an 33 ft airship exploding at 150 feet here in the US vs. Europe?
imawswami - are you speaking of the Strat-X project? When did this happen, and have these results been published?
Yes, it does underscore the difficulties of persistent, stratospheric, flight. Let's hope Dr. Kroplin and company have done their research and are successful in accomplishing their goal.
serious1, the LOE listed the following:
The U.S. Navy’s LOE aims to demonstrate a 10 kg. (22 lbs.) telecommunications package aboard the SAS-51 at altitudes of up to 2,000 ft. that would have a range of transmission of up to 100 miles. The system uses a modest power supply of less than 100 watts.
So I believe the latest news refers to a different event.
Deja vu all over again for attempts at stratospheric flight, but now we have a different man at the helm who at least can show a flying, segmented, airship that has gotten off the drawing board and has already flown and been retrieved at lower altitudes.
I wonder what the patented energy delivery system is about?
As a side note, notice how the LOE PR did not name Hotzone as shown in previous PR's about CWID. I wonder if they are using something different? Or maybe this was due to the Trimax lawsuit.
Cool, reasons given in the Pacer filing cited a lot of legal precedent, but basically:
1) there are a number of overlapping facts and questions of law that apply to both cases.
2) less burden and chance of confusion on the parties, witnesses, and the court
Jet, the meeting was on the 15th per the SEC docs. Previous SEC docs said they were scheduled to meet the 3rd week of July which means, anyday after the 14th of the month qualifies.
Why are you so intent on a date where nothing happened?
risk, PACER did have some new info posted and although it did not have specific data regarding a settlement, there were some updates from the Joint Scheduling Conference and other items:
1) they are consolidating the Joe/Luis case with GTEM's SEC case.
2) Settlement is still possible..the doc said they met in person on the 15th although the board heard 17th. Bottom line is they met and are talking.
3) timeline puts a jury trail date for January, 2010.
4) In terms of penalty valuations, SEC is not claiming damages, but they are seeking civil penalties of 1.6M plus disgorgement of profits plus interest over the violations.
Me thinks they settle rather than drag this on for another year and a half. It is obvious that they need to have the goods and revenue coming in to pay any sort of substantial fine. Then again, if they intend to pay TAO millions over the next few years, maybe they will be able to do so?
I finally had a chance to look over the 2006 10Ksb.
I can't believe the company was in such an awful financial mess and old mgmt was all smiles at the 2006 SHM. 36K in revenues? Centerline software upgrade? Yuck!
But what is interesting and worthy of speculation, is the TAO deal.
In November of 2007, the deal was structured around providing TAO with a minimum of 1M in engineering deals per year plus stock and cash payments paid quarterly.
Then, recently, as in June 2008, they restructured the deal.......they form a US based JV. Rather than (or maybe in addition to) TAO getting the 1M in engineering consultation, they get:
1) 50% ownership in a company that will market to US, Canada, Mexico
2) TAO gives up, from a previous agreement, a 12M offer for 50% of their assets for 3.5M (Does this make TAO IP valued at 24M?!)
3) The stock portion (4.45M shares @ $529K) is valued at .12 per share
4) Somehow, GTEM comes up with 280K in cash for the deal as well (can't wait for next few filings to see where that was from)
5) TAO is to get 2.691M in CASH over the next 3 years.
At first, I thought...why the heck would TAO take less than the original 12M deal? Does TAO think...Uh oh...this company is a scam and I better try to get something out of it rather than risk getting nothing? Maybe he thinks that he found a sucker to pay him all this money for unproven technology a la Vern and Uli?
Then thoughts turned more positive....there just might be some huge business potential or maybe it's already in hand?
Under this new deal.....TAO has a much larger upside with revenue sharing versus the original deal of only upfront money (12M vs 3.5M) and potential stock appreciation.
TAO and company might see some huge potential that we have not been privey to? Why else would they agree?
To also agree to stock at .12/shr and future cash payments from a "scam" company that has trouble paying their bills?
Those 4.45M shares that TAO has would need to hit around $2/shr for TAO to make up the 8.5M difference between his 12M and 3.5M deal. If you add in JV revenue sharing, obviously the shareprice could be lower too and still make up the difference.
Is TAO getting talked into a raw deal? I am sure Joe, Vern and Uli could give some color commentary on making deals with GTEM.
Are the GTEM shareholders giving away much needed cash for technology again - cash that will never be recouped? Look at what they gave up for Hotzone, Sanswire, Centerline, etc.
Will Risk's, and others' predictions come true and any worthwhile assets will be transferred to a different entity - leaving us as "bagholders"?
Or just maybe....this is the one that will elevate us out of pink sheet land and eventually increase shareholder value.
Obviously we need a lot of help - a settlement with the SEC that is workable and saves us from revocation, current financials, continued funding, and a contract.
In the 10KSB, they already know there is going to be a 15M loss for 2007. The going concern statements were ominous - yet here we are in 2008 - still limping along, trading, and giving demoes.
Jet, you could also argue that it has appreciated off the .03 lows. Glass half-full or empty?
If you are willing to wager, you must have a pretty strong opinion about things that are about to happen. What might that be?
I think many know what the meeting is about. It is the outcome that is uncertain, and the shareprice reflects that, IMO.
Response to GTEM's motion to dismiss certain points of the SEC case is due today. Also, they are planning on meeting to discuss a possible settlement during the 3rd week of July. That 17th date, per Mide, certainly falls within that parameter.
Still no Strat video?
risk_it....thanks for the DD, but I think this post only bolsters the argument that Sanswire-TAO is in a business where more than a few companies are attempting to accomplish a common goal and nobody has gotten there with a "production" model - only prototypes or demonstrators.
SANS-TAO is attempting to bring a persistent (measured in days, not hours), solar powered, autonomous airship to market and has just as much of a chance at becoming a player as the others.
I looked at the links and could not find anyone with a production model that has fully accomplished what the company is trying to do.