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.
Respectfully, when you mention FAA approval for the Argus, you are confusing CONUS commercialization with militarization. A militarized product doesn't need FAA approval to be purchased and used in military operations. The BiB just happens to be lucky that its Concept of Operations allows for rapid/instant commercialization because FAA approval already exists for moored aerostats in the National Air Space. Just because flights of untethered airships under 60K altitude in the United States are a few years away doesn't mean that the FAA controls military purchases, overseas sales or overflights of the NAS above 60K. The FAA isn't in charge of everything and Mike Clark's Colorado Springs strategy called for commercial sales overseas first anyway. It is complex needle to thread and a winding path from the foxhole to the stratosphere but it is a viable path IMO that no one else is pursuing. Best regards, IJO
Record revenues versus breakthrough revenues this year. MM, even though it is a holiday and I worked yesterday I can only play here so long, but I did have an additional thought for you. I view a distinction between record sales revenues and breakthrough sales revenues. Record sales revenues just mean that you beat the highest sales revenues you ever had. Breakthrough means you go to a new level of revenues of some kind in order of magnitude. My personal floor from here on is record revenues. I try to work methodically so the markets are identified and penetrated that lead to growing sales in the LTA sector. If my part of the team concentrates on that, Glenn and some others are free to concentrate on things that can lead to the breakthroughs he needs for big jumps in investor value. That is much harder work in my opinion. So if I seem content with shooting for record revenues, it is because I am part of the team working on the easier target. No one is lowering any bars. Maybe we stumble out of them, but we don't lower them. :<) Warm and respectful regards, IJO
Thank you, but it is more like a cliff than a tight rope. As long as I stay with information available to the public, I am not walking the edge. Some of that is obscure stuff but I always check first to see if it is public eye or not, even if it is in obscure locations. I work with the Advanced Technical Intelligence Center in Dayton who train people for Open Source Intelligence Gathering (OSINT) among other things. At least a half dozen people here would be great at it, believe me. I even encouraged Renaissance to take their Boot camp but he has his own great career plans. I hope to work for his Pacific operation someday! :<)
If some are you are interested in seeing the technical term for your due diligence skills here it is:
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2010-featured-story-archive/open-source-intelligence.html
Thanks, Pagan. Maybe I have never made it clear but I bought and still own my position because I believe in this technology and wanted to "own" a part of a company like this. I have owned other businesses before and I know the value fluctuates as you learn, adapt, grow, have market changes, reposition, etc. So I view fluctuations in stock price like that--it changes but what matters is whether or not you are building a real business IMO.
From you and others on the board I have learned it is more complex than that with publicly traded companies but since pride of ownership and pride of accomplishment have been my two main rewards, I don't let changes in the SP distract me. So, in that sense I don't care about making money on my investment. I have been looking for other outcomes trusting in this new environment (new to me) that substance will translate into sales and then into SP. Certainly if we had more people who wanted to "own" and not just trade we might move up but I am never sure of that either. I am a buy and own guy not just a buy and hold guy. I think that puts me in a tiny minority. But I do wish success to all true "investors" here. Best regards, IJO
LOL. I need to go back to work this afternoon(to make more money I guess?) but what I would really like to do is buy MORE WSGI stock. We can speculate as to why I can't--maybe I am low on cash? But let's be serious, your good leadership on this board has helped to keep it from being a place where mindless bashers and pumpers spout potty-mouthed drivel. I thank you for that very much. And I HAVE used what I have learned here to make money--just not YET through my WSGI investment. Yet I am a patient man and I like to think that I am always learning. But I think you would have enjoyed my literal and recent peek inside the box--really good engineering and construction. You can see some of that in the media pictures but up close and personal is different. Perhaps you have MUCH more to teach me about trading stuff? One martial arts instructor taught me, "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." Maybe I am now ready to learn more from you? Best wishes and best intentions always for you, IndyJonesOhio
Here is something from the public record on the government's appetite for tethercraft like our TDAP and TC(pages 25 and 28 of the document below I think)--
https://www.bids.tswg.gov/TSWG/bids.nsf/0/1824B279AB281A5385257B9400503339/$FILE/13-Q-3066+Final.pdf
Very good question that I cannot answer. But very good question--please hold on to it in 2014. Respectfully, IJO
So many questions, so little time. Here is where we agree:
The hard part is growing their businesses without dilution.
I just was using the LTASCorp Media page on their website to put together a proposal. There are a lot of good pix there we have not discussed here at Ihub town to my recollection--good OSINT data to be mined IMO. For example, there is a pic of LTASCorp winch system for the STMPAS/Helikite winching down a small Helikite. You can also get your own "peek inside the box" although the latest version has been substantially upgraded and changed as you can see by another pic on the page--but that one doesn't let you look inside! :<(
Here is the link:
http://www.ltascorp.com/media.html
Unfortunately, I cannot answer questions about what is there, but I bet the smart people on this board can figure most of it out! :<)
Back to work, IndyJonesOhio
Bear, if I answered that, Glenn would call me and I would never be seen on Ihub again. LOL. Our co-owner who couldn't go along asked me if I took pictures. I said I didn't even ask. Respectfully, other than generalities about the quality of what I saw, I can't say anymore. But, IMO, the product is the real deal and the company is working it and other things hard. JMO. Respectfully, IJO
IMO Glenn handles it just right. JMO. We are yet to have a customer that doesn't want restrictions on information release. Just wait, we will or the timing will be right IMO. We need more verticals just so we don't get caught in so many information management/restriction silos. But this is what you get when you concentrate on government work IMO--very delayed information release.
But it was very cool to see the BiB, look in the box and see the quality of the work. I told BBoy that if you like BMW engineering, you would like this box. Best regards, IJO
Just got back from Jacksonville visiting with Kevin Hess at the LTAS production facility. The best part was crawling around an actual BiB on the production floor. This included a "peek" in the box. Actually, it was more like a guided tour of the box with Kevin pointing out the design details. So, finally I have "peeked" into the box literally. And Sheesh, I hope that accusation is dead.
HERE IS ALL I AM GOING TO SAY: IMO it is extremely well designed. IMO it is 100% MilSpec and ruggedized. I have long respected Kevin but talking tech with him standing on the BiB took my respect to a much higher level. I lost track of what iteration this is (Mark 7.09?), because, just like the PRs have said, they are in a constant feedback loop with the DoD customer base. It is fair to say there were at least 15 upgrades pointed out--mostly tweaks--that made it a better unit for military field use.
As I speculated, 16 a month is no problem IMO, although they might have to have multiple subs for some aspects where they only have one now. JMO. They can build envelopes FAST and WELL IMO. I was impressed with their production equipment, employees and system for envelopes. Some sharp young people there IMO. Kevin offers a facility tour on his Aerial Products web site so anyone in JAX could call and try to schedule--if you can catch him. A Google search will also tell you that the office/warehouse unit next to LTASCorp is empty so there is more scalability available in place. And we have read on this board that other states are interested in attracting production if it continues to ramp up.
It was a great experience. THAT IS ALL I AM GOING TO SAY. But, IMO, WSGI has a great technical team at LTASCorp IMO. Will that translate into record sales in 2014 again? Time will tell as always. As they say, a fun time was had by all. Best regards, IJO
This delay in Small UAS (sUAS) by the FAA is good for WSGI IMO (not so good for my company though). Many of the small tactical systems that WSGI makes can be used by people RIGHT NOW with no FAA mandated training or certification as opposed to the very complicated requirements that will no doubt be put on all UAS operators in the US by the FAA eventually.
Small UAS Rule Release Delayed Until November 2014
By Ben Gielow
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s latest update of significant rulemaking, put out in January, now lists the planned publication date of the small UAS notice of proposed rulemaking as November 2014 – almost four years late.
The DOT’s explanation for the delay is “unanticipated issues requiring further analysis.” This could possibly mean the Federal Aviation Administration is starting over and rewriting the rule.
November 2014 is the date when the FAA will begin collecting public comments. It will likely take many more months, and possibly years, for the FAA to make a formal decision on all of the public comments and publish the final rule. That means the commercial use of small UAS could be pushed back further than the September 2015 deadline Congress established for UAS integration when it passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act in 2012.
Several months ago, the U.S. House Unmanned Systems Caucus led a congressional delegation letter with 30 signatures to the secretary of transportation asking for an explanation as to the delay of the small UAS rule; however, the DOT has not yet responded.
This news also runs counter to what FAA Administrator Michael Huerta has said publicly numerous times in recent months, which is that he intends to get the rule out for public comment in “early 2014.”
Congress passed language in the 2014 defense authorization bill that requires the FAA and other federal UAS stakeholders to submit multiple reports to Congress on the status of UAS integration.
Another step forward toward UAS integration in the US national Air Space:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainsafety/2014-01-13/uav-sense-and-avoid-tests-successful
UAV Sense-and-Avoid Tests Successful
AINsafety » January 13, 2014
by Robert P. Mark
January 13, 2014, 10:40 AM
UAV manufacturer General Atomics says it has successfully tested sense-and-avoid architecture and self-separation functionality that could be the key to keeping piloted aircraft and UAVs apart in the air. The recent test marked the first time the technology has functioned as a true “system of systems” to detect every class of aircraft equipage, and it paves the way for a due regard capability, that ability to avoid aircraft, objects and weather.
The test integrated and synchronized BAE Systems’ identification-friend-or-foe transponder with automatic dependent surveillance broadcast IN equipment, GA-ASI’s Due Regard air-to-air radar (DRR), and Honeywell’s TPA-100 traffic alert collision avoidance system to detect and track cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft. The prototype DRR tracked multiple targets of opportunity, in addition to participating aircraft, throughout 40-plus scripted encounters, including some aircraft not tracked by air traffic control.
Sensor data collected by these systems during the flight test will be used by the FAA and industry participants to develop and further refine their algorithms, which will in turn lead to a proof-of-concept sense-and-avoid system, including collision avoidance.
Good questions to send the company. They will get back with you in my experience. Always pleasant to receive an email from Barbara, Dan or Glenn IMO. As a new investor it would be good for you to avail yourself of that channel. Let us know their response if you can. Thanks, IJO
Micro UAVs do not require an airfield. They can be lifted from a trunk and flown. However, they have limited flight time, require COAs (now only avaialble in rural areas), need certified and trained personnel and are expensive to buy ($70K per pound on average). Tactical LTA has many advantages but is under-diffused from a market awareness standpoint IMO. THAT is what we need to change IMO. Thanks! IJO
Dear BBoy, here is another article on the state of the Ohio/Indiana UAS Center and Test Complex and UAS commercialization/business development efforts in Ohio:
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/12/4746808/ohio-indiana-push-for-place-in.html
Both systems have their places and their strengths IMO. The good thing for WSGI is that you do not need any license at all to operate a tethered LTAS system according to FAA regulations (Part 101). At the moment you need a special Certificate of Operation (COA)for a rural area and specially trained personnel for MAVs. It is probably not either or but MAVs have more barriers to diffusion than tactical tethered aerostats IMO. WSGI needs some of its own first responder sales before we can say they have penetrated that vertical market IMO though. Keven Hess has sold them to law enforcement in the past but let's set first responder market penetration as a 2014 goal shall we? By the way, you can also operate tactical LTAS in urban environments overhead of crowds--something the FAA probably will never allow for HTA IMO. Good discussion about the various advantages and disadvantages of these systems. Coincidentally, I am sitting across the lab from an inflated Kingfisher right now. I also have a Pegasus-4 behind me (4 rotor MAV multicopter). This isn't an either-or proposition but the more agencies think about 3D situational awareness, the more both technologies will diffuse IMO. JMO, IndyJonesOhio
IMO this PR answers your question. IMO the relationship with BAE is ignored too much in our discussions here. IMO, based on this public information, this is how our two WASP systems got into the WASP systems got into the NIE through the SMDC. Easy to forget this early 2013 sale, though. IMO it turned out to be important.
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/lighter-than-air-systems-provides-initial-aerostat-launcher-system-aerostats-bae-systems-otcqb-wsgi-1779252.htm
Best regards, IJO
What ever gave you the idea that they were not purchased? IJO
An example of the high kinetic energy that heavier than air drones have:
http://www.c4isrnet.com/article/M5/20140107/C4ISRNET08/301070022/Drone-mishap-damaged-cruiser-s-computer-center?odyssey=nav|head
I understand. Best regards, IJO
The state police and the DOT trucks always get there. They are allowed to drive on the berm or the median as needed. But as I said, some applications and incidents will always be better for HTA. These early adopters in the military and in the other parts of the public sector will have to sort the various scenarios out for us. Some will provide real advantages and some will be dead ends. We are in early adopter phase here so we will have to see how that works out. It is like the meteorological BiB at Eglin AFB--maybe every airport will get one, maybe that is a dead end. That is why I always try to penetrate ten verticals with any new technology. Almost always one out of ten really takes off. Sometimes, more! Best regards, IJO
It is good to recall that sales to companies in certain states get a competitive advantage on bid decisions. So, if you bid through an instate reseller, your bid gets substantial preference over out of state bidders. In Ohio we call it the BuyOhio program. That program is public information. I also posted several days ago about Public Information Management policies that certain states and state agencies have. Since delivery for the aerostat system you mention is still many weeks away, any state might not make public comments or free their vendors to make overt statements without approval until the timing is right for them.
We may all have to wait some for official press releases from the purchaser for more details on this sale IMO. You can also speculate that the initial sale would be through competitive bidding but once a specific platform/capability is in the table of equipment, any future bids might be sole source, at least as far as the manufacturer goes. You can imagine the nightmare if a state had 12-24 aerostats from 12 or more manufacturers with a dozen different ISR and comms packages.
We can also speculate that ISR might not be the only use for aerostats for a state government. Many western states and some mountainous eastern states have communication problems when doing emergency operations in unpopulated areas. The WASP capability that the DoD purchases could also have application for state and local government entities IMO. That would be another new market/product line for the company to consider or be working on IMO. Many of the Defense contractors my company works with are eager to diversify into non-federal or non-defense related sales. Kudos to Glenn and the team for pulling this off when others are trying so hard. A lot to discuss here. I speculate that we will be talking about the implications of these developments for months. Thanks for furthering the discussion. Warm regards, IndyJonesOhio
Sorry about the 70mph comment without clarification. I was referring to the speed at which you could pull a BiB trailer with the BiB inside non-inflated. You would pull it to the location of the incident and then inflate it on the spot. This is definitely an incident management tool and not a traffic management tool IMO. Best to think of it that way IMO. But that 70mph comment could be confusing without clarification. Thanks. Helicopters and planes can travel faster even if they are more expensive and can't stay on target as long.
IMO the BiB can only replace HTA craft in certain applications. But the early adopters will no doubt work out innovative uses as they are deployed to the field. Uses the company coudl never think of themselves. That is why Glenn's comments in the PR about penetrating new markets are important to note IMO. The real geniuses of product innovation are the early adopters IMO. Smart companies build field development partnerships with them in every new vertical they penetrate. Selling one or two new LTA systems is not big news anymore IMO. Penetrating a new market should be IMO. JMO. Best regards, IJO
I sat through one briefing once where I was told that traffic congestion data is derived from cell phone towers. They told me that the speed at which you are transferred from tower to tower gives them the data to determine what traffic flow is on that highway. I never tried to confirm this independently but it made sense to me. It also would give the cell phone companies other data/service to sell. For what it is worth, IJO
Most state departments of transportation have economic impact formulae for various highways. Some interstates cost $1MM per hour if they close and backup (late deliveries, fuel burned in sitting trucks and cars, etc.). So if you can monitor traffic and rapidly create and monitor detours/reroutes, you save real dollars in the regional economy. Say Route 40 runs parallel to Interstate 70 and traffic is rerouted onto 40. But, 40 has a stoplight and the traffic bottlenecks there and begins to back-up. If you can see that from your Incident Command Van at the accident scene, you can dispatch a state trooper and flag vehicles through the light and keep the traffic (and the commerce) flowing. Here in Ohio we have many manufacturing plants that use inventory-less/just in time manufacture. So there are other savings/incentives that could drive state governments to use this technology.
Fortunately for WSGI, if this technology catches on, each state will need multiple BiBs since they can only travel at 70MPH pulled behind a DOT pick-up or van. So the most likely concept of operations would be locating them at regional highway depots 2-4 hours apart. 24 hours of a BiB at a highway incident would cost a LOT less than 24 hours helicopter or fixed wing aerial asset. Much less operator fatigue as well. Plus the downlink is easily configured to present real time data to the incident commanders. A nice application of tactical LTA technology IMO. Good thinking, Real. Best regards, IJO
Thank you. Your second article mentions "lighter than air" in the mid-range targeted capabilities. Since that article is a couple of years old, in my opinion, we are seeing some of the fruit of that interest now. Thanks, nice article. Best regards, IndyJonesOhio
IMO miniaturization of sensor technology is always potential good news for WSGI's tactical LTA product line:
http://www.c4isrnet.com/article/M5/20140107/C4ISRNET04/301070027/FLIR-releases-new-thermal-imaging-core?odyssey=nav|head
This is a good possibility as well. My mind went to geotagging of targets which can also be done, but perhaps you are right--a GPS transmitter on the payload so they can recover it if the tether is damaged. Obviously you wouldn't ask for either of these enhanced capabilities unless you were interested in additional procurement IMO. JMO, IJO.
Some sales to state and local governments come under individual agency Public Information Management policies. For example, when you make the sale you might agree that the bulk of information management will be done by the purchasing entity. That sometimes makes details about such sales slower to be released IMO. JMO, IJO
It is a technical but very neat capability. You can start here:
https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/47734?show=full
Essentially, with passive sensors like electro-optical (think digital video camera) you can only know where your payload ISR package is hanging in the sky from a GPS chip. But really smart software can calculate the angle and sometimes (if there is a laser rangefinder on board) the distance of the hypotenuse of a theoretical triangle to the target being observed. You can add alogorithms that recognize it looks like a person, people are this tall on average and the zoom and distance are this far so lets short cut and say this is no more than 10K meters and no less than 9.5K meters. Other software algorithms do the rest. Both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have done things like this with payload packages:
http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1867247&highlight=
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/procerus/dual-sensor-gimbal.html
As to the first article, doesn't Kevin/LTASCorp do some work with Georgia Tech? regards, IJO
Thanks for asking. Just the opposite. Since there was no funding involved, they would have had to rely on their state and grant funding for the foreseeable future anyway. They were more curious about the states' resolve to keep this functionality active in order to attract industry. That we will see over time. As a corporate team member I have been promised some talking points within the week--I will try to remember to pass them on as soon as I get them. One of the things to note is that each FAA site is given a specific task--secure downlinks, avoidance, etc. Ohio/Indiana wanted to stand up a generalist site which would probably be more attractive to industry anyway. There should be some articles out in the local press soon--I will try to pass them along as well. This is an infant industry and that volatility is part of what makes it fun. But so far, the Ohio Indiana UAS Center is steady as she goes. FYI, the Center has not yet joined our Ohio LTA UAS Consortium. All our present Consortium members are UAS Center corporate team members though. Best regards, IJO
BBoy, since you asked, here is one of our Dayton partners response on Ohio not being selected as a FAA site:
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=2cde111ddefd5686bef926c68&id=e6f5ce5731&e=4628458cc0
These folks have been very supportive of all our UAS work and research, including the Argus-related efforts. Hope you had a great holiday time with your family. Best wishes always, IJO
That would be up to NASA. NASA is the one who awarded this challenge to the Ohio Center. FAA has yet to show any money to anyone. Hopefully that comes later. But NASA has a real budget for sense and avoid research at the moment. Happy New Year. IJO
The States of Ohio and Indiana funded the Ohio/Indiana UAS Center for the next two years up front. Everyone had to do this since FAA selection did not/does not bring any FAA funding--it is just a paper designation/approval. So the NASA challenge and other functions can continue on schedule. You will note it is called the Ohio Indiana UAS Center and Test Complex. This may or may not affect the Test Complex side since there are plenty of DoD entities and companies like us that will continue to need airspace support locally anyway. We have an office and a laboratory in the same building with those folks so we are still pulling for their success and feel their disappointment personally. But their jobs and work should be secure for the next two years and a large state like Ohio will need an office that handles UAS matters anyway. There even could be a second round of selection for states like Oklahoma, Florida, California and Ohio where this is a lot of UAS activity. I think what we missed was a PR boost on a national level. If we are smart we will build a strong regional center collaboratively (Michigan, Kentucky, et al) and find advantage that way. If. . . A happy and prosperous New Year to you and yours, IJO
Yep, I am headed over there for a meeting right now--don't know whether to wear a black armband or not. We won't close down since we have a big NASA sense and avoid challenge to sponsor for the next two years:
http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/challengesandprizes
But this could affect any major UAS Center expansion for sure. No joy in Mudville today.
LOL. A gentleman would never arrive unannounced! Merry Christmas to you, Warp. Sincerely, IJO
My opinion of the company has always been positive (if you check my past posts) and grows more so everyday--despite the significant challenges they face, CT. My opinion of the share price improves as I learn more about the impact of LJC (now mostly gone), Brio (soon to be gone) and large shareholders who liquidated for various reasons this year. I suppose traders can come and go with a company like this and often do. The real satisfaction for me is owning a part of a company that is advancing technology and opening new markets for that technology. My theory has always been for the company to build substance and then to trust that substance to lead it forward. I like the progress being made. Please don't confuse my new found optimism about share price with optimism for the company as you say in your post. One I have always had and the other is new for me. As you like to say, time will tell. I am going to be in your state in January and again in March--very close to you on the January trip in fact. My CEO will be along if you would like to meet. I think you would like us! Merry Christmas to you. Warmly, IJO
There is a typo--it is actually a modified BiB100 to fit the specs supplied by ODOT. Did I mention that ODOT has 12 districts? Also they are considered an early adopter of UAS technology among state Departments of Transportation around the country.
You can read more about their plans, especially for LTA here (I posted this is a different context before):
http://www.lidarnews.com/PDF/LiDARMagazine_Judson-ODOTandUAS_Vol3No5.pdf
Ah, so you have noticed that my confidence about share price rising has increased in recent days. More and more I am understanding the supply and demand aspects of it. With two BIG legacy investors, LJC and Brio all selling in 2013, what could we expect but a lower SP? But the LTA divisions of this company have gone from pre-revenue to sales validated in 2013. That is always a milestone for a new market IMO. But, yes, Cole, I am presently more optimistic about a rising SP in 2014. JMO I am not minimizing the challenges facing WSGI but the market, sales and production side of the business are all stronger than when you and I first met here at WSGI Ihub town last year. Enjoy your holiday CT. Sincerely, IJO