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.
Other conference for GTE in October 2005
Not sure if this was posted before, but in light of the just released Oct. telecom05 conference in Las Vegas, this mention would be timely enough to repeat. GTE attending ISPCON 2005 Santa Clara in Oct. 18-20 (just prior to Telecom2005).
Sure appears like Globetel has something to say this Fall.
Conference
http://www.ispcon.com/fall2005/default.asp
exhibitors
http://www.ispcon.com/fall2005/attend-exhibithall.asp
exhibit location
http://www.ispcon.com/_PDFs/fall2005/ISP-F05-Floorplan.pdf
Huff snags Press in M&A magazine
It's a single paragraph in a recent article on exceleration of mergers and acquisitions in Florida during 2005. The excerpt is below, but would advice reading the whole piece on site.
Am sharing this because it's nice to have others acknowledge what we have been witnesses of for some time now. That being the spectacle of a thoughtful expansion into charted/uncharted telecom realms. I've paid for my front row seat, who's got the popcorn?
Aug. 2005 South Florida CEO
Business Magazine of Miami-Dade, Broward and the Palm Beaches
http://www.southfloridaceo.com/article165.html
"Local CEOs, optimistic about future economic growth, say they are motivated to acquire companies by expanded opportunities that demand strategic acquisitions to fill a market need.
For example, in the telecom space, GlobeTel Communications Corp., a Pembroke Pines-based telecommunications and financial services company, snapped up Naples-based HotZone Inc., a wireless applications company, in June, for an undisclosed amount in stock and cash. GlobeTel CEO Timothy Huff says the acquisition gives GlobeTel the missing wireless delivery piece of its applications platform."
Update on GTE/Plant 42 FWIW
For those that are interested or draw insight from the sometimes mundane goings-on with our company, here are some recent observations around site 9 where we are told the Sanswire 2 airship will/is being fabricated.
First, Hangar 703 (adjacent to GTE's 704) which housed (i believe) the Aeros Aeronautical Systems Corp airship fabrication center is now empty. It's up for lease, so if you know anyone who needs 225,000 sq.ft. (that's 750'x300'), please let the city of Palmdale know....
Best guess as to why the v-ca: they are now partnered with Lockheed on the Walrus airship feasibility study, so possibly Aeros simply moved into the L's Skunkworks or other structures also at Plant 42. Hey, when it costs .30 per square foot to lease H703 a month (2003 price quote), maybe they were doubly motivated by the cost?
How does this relate to investors of GTE? Both Hangar 703/704 have a common parking facility. Outside of the two security people i've met,it would seem the only other individuals parking here would be.......Sanswire workers.
Daily, the lot has 20 or so cars park it in. When traveling past Plant 42 early mornings to work, it's not uncommon to pass a few cars turning into park by the hangars.
I've talked to security there, and they confirm that Globetel is present, but will not comment further.
Lately, on plenty of occasions, 704's hangar door is partially slide back, not enough to get a peek in, but certainly enough to allow some fresh air to a hard-working crew?
For myself, i take a certain comfort believing that GTE is obviously no longer revising S2 out in Mohave, but with a sizable crew, building what they said they would. It's reality at 30 cents a square foot/month for 80,000 sq. ft. of building space.
What the markets do with our Share Price is what they do. What GTE is doing is building up a company and meeting their requirements to keep their investors properly informed. What we do is make a decision based on observations. Tears are optional.
-swami
Latest Lockheed aerostat Darpa contract
So what's happen to Lockheed since distancing themselves from stratospheric aerostats (they removed conceptual image of a stratospheric airship from projects page, and last heard they were waiting, as are our European/Japanese competitors, for commecialization of a technological breakthrough yet to happen: the polycarb rigid skin -think plastic impregnated carbon-nanotubes)?
They have been awarded a DARPA contract to produce a heavy-lifting aerostat -called the Walrus.
Openly wondering here if this is Lockheed's fallback option in aerostats if their strat-ship "wobbled". Judging by all the gov't money currently chasing anything filled with helium, it kinda seems that way (see second link above for current gov't contract awards for aerostats).
And as fate would have it, partnered with Lockheed in the project is Aeros Aeronautical (who themselves are dappling in Stratoshperic airships but already possess/test a surveillance blimp in the Sky Dragon) our next door neighbor at Site 9 Plant 42. Of course, one mile away in the same facility is ...Lockheed Martin. What are the odds, huh?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Contractors
The two contractors receiving Walrus Phase I awards are:
Lockheed Martin Corp. Advanced Development Programs in Palmdale, CA ($3 million)
Aeros Aeronautical Systems Corp. in Tarzana, CA ($3.3 million)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For visuals and complete article use this link:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/walrus-heavylift-blimp-getting-off-the-ground/index.php#...
Also:
To view a list of articles/contracts related to above please check out this link. [Nice to see all those dollars being spread out by military on aerostats.....Are turn soon perhaps?!?]
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/blimps_lta_craft/#orison_mc
ARTICLE
» Walrus Heavy-Lift Blimp Getting off the Ground
Walrus Heavy-Lift Blimp Getting off the Ground
Posted 30-Aug-2005 05:53
DID has covered the US military's rising interest in aerostats, blimps and related programs, including the Walrus heavy-transport blimp (that's "heavy" as in "1-2 million pounds") which may be able to offer a faster and more versatile substitute for sealift. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has now awarded funding to two contractors for the first phase of the Walrus program.
In this article DID explains the concept, details the contractors and contracts involved in this initial award, and lays out the program's structure...
DARPA notes that a key goal of the Walrus program is to establish clear and credible solutions that provide confidence that earlier airship-era limitations will be overcome. In particular, an early focus of the program will be the investigation of advanced breakthrough technologies that will support the development of innovative lift and buoyancy concepts that do not rely on off-board ballast.
Concept & Key Technologies
The Walrus program will develop and evaluate a very large airlift vehicle concept designed to control lift in all stages of air or ground operations including the ability to off-load payload without taking on-board ballast other than surrounding air. This is obviously rather important when offloading up to 2 million pounds of personnel and military equipment in remote areas. In distinct contrast to earlier generation airships, the Walrus aircraft will be a heavier-than-air vehicle and will generate lift through a combination of aerodynamics, thrust vectoring and gas buoyancy generation and management.
The Walrus operational vehicle (OV) is intended to carry a payload of 500-1,000 tons (that's 1-2 million pounds) up to 12,000 nautical miles, in less than seven days and at a competitive cost. Given these enormous capacities, they would mostly be used to deploy full-scale fighting units (for example, the components of an Future Combat Systems Army Unit of Action) quickly, getting them to their site with a minimum of equipment reassembly work required. The ideal is that transported forces should fully ready to fight within six hours.
Initial conceptions call for the Walrus to operate without significant infrastructure and from unimproved landing sites, including rough ground having five-foot-high obstacles like boulders, shrubs, et. al. Additionally, Walrus should be capable of performing theater lift and supporting sea-basing or even persistence missions like communications and surveillance.
DARPA says that advances in envelope and hull materials, buoyancy and lift control, drag reduction and propulsion have combined to make this concept feasible. Technologies to be investigated in the initial study phase include vacuum/air buoyancy compensator tanks, which provide buoyancy control without ballast, and electrostatic atmospheric ion propulsion.
The Contractors
The two contractors receiving Walrus Phase I awards are:
Lockheed Martin Corp. Advanced Development Programs in Palmdale, CA ($3 million)
Aeros Aeronautical Systems Corp. in Tarzana, CA ($3.3 million)
Program Structure
The Walrus program will develop an operational vehicle concept design and required breakthrough technologies and will conduct risk reduction demonstrations of these new technologies.
During the program's first phase, a 12-month analytical effort, the two contractor teams will conduct trade studies to determine which OV design concept most satisfies the operational tasks and optimizes design capability. Phase I will explore various vehicle configurations (rigid, non-rigid and semi-rigid), and will conclude with a concept design review of the OV and the supporting technology development plan for risk reduction demonstrations including the ATD vehicle.
DARPA will select one contractor team to enter the second phase, which will be a demonstration effort spanning three years. During phase II, the program will refine the Walrus' design needs, identify its potential military use through modeling and studies, develop breakthrough technologies, and conduct risk reduction demonstrations of components and subsystems.
DARPA also notes that demonstrations will include flight tests of a Walrus Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) scaled aircraft. This is a fancy way of saying that under the $10 million Walrus advanced technology demonstration (ATD), they plan to flight-test a "significant-scale" lifting airship in 2008 with a payload capability of around 30 tons, comparable with a Lockheed Martin C-130.
These risk reduction demonstrations, including the ATD vehicle, are designed to establish a low-risk technology path for proving the Walrus concept and achieving the operating goals.
See DARPA Release [PDF format].
Sanswire Prototype evolution continued....
Sebass, like your listed chronology, and have one also.
This one begins though in an unaffirmed place (company acknowledged) back in 2004. While recorded in a couple of articles, these 1st prototypes we are now speaking of, did not receive full media coverage or press release coverage, but do speak to me as truth and will offer it up to the board as opinion +.
DATE:July 2004
Official testing of Platform (non-strat) hauled up by jet helicopter to show practical application of telecom transmition with the benefits of altitude. Company PR and various articles covered this event and stated such.
A few articles (one is given below) had a different take on the testing. They talked with Sanswire Networks and reported that the testing process would involve "small stratellites" forming a communicative "mesh" over Atlanta.
Here is one such article:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5260257.html
----------------------------------------
Broadband by airship?
By Ben Charny CNET News.com July 7, 2004, 3:20 PM PT
A company aiming to bring broadband to the masses via tiny airships next week plans to dot Atlanta's skies with a flotilla of low-orbiting "stratellites."
According to Sanswire Networks, fixed wireless equipment on land will send a signal to antennae in stratellites floating high over the city, then to designated areas on the ground. The stratellites are similar to satellites in concept, but they are stationed in the stratosphere like unmanned airships rather than being put in orbit. The company plans to demonstrate applications using IP-based voice and video over the stratellite connection.
A broadband network based on tiny airships isn't as farfetched as it seems. A commercial balloon-based IP network, owned by Space Data, began operating in April. Its network is used to monitor gas and oil field employees in a 400-mile area of the Permian Basin region in the western part of Texas.
Attention on nontraditional ways of getting broadband has increased now that President Bush and opponent John Kerry are focusing their campaigns on improving on the relatively few broadband-connected homes and offices in the United States. Many of the underserved areas are too expensive to reach by telephone or cable network, the dominant way broadband is doled out.
Stratellites can be positioned much lower in the sky than balloon-based IP networks. That makes it faster to send photos, e-mails or other forms of uploading onto the Internet. Uploads are something that higher-orbiting balloons have problems with.
But there's a price to pay for the low-altitude high speeds. The airships are buffeted about in jet streams, and their covers wear down after about 18 months. Satellites, on the other hand, can last decades.
Sanswire Networks is a wholly owned subsidiary of Miami-based GlobeTel Communications. end
---------------------------------------------------------
When considering the validity of these small (obviously FAA exempt because of their size) Strat's, please bear in mind the nature of their inventor, Vern Koenig.
He is a modeler at heart -that is scratch construction of flight-able miniature aircraft. This would involve personal research, layout, and material acquisition and assembly. His posts on a modeler board at Yahoo offer, i believe, some tangible evidence of this (obviously taking the man at his word).
His proprietary work on high-altitude rigid airships appears revolutionary, and given the nature of the inventor, presupposes small prototypes, not only for design validation but also for real-world testing of autonomous stationary programing. In short, the first strats were small beasts, like a modeler would build (imho).
I hate to build on this but, the January (2005) presentation to NASA, DOD, USAF, etc., and further orders we are now seeing for Strats from Columbia and Peru bear some witness to compelling evidence on the part of Globetel/Sanswire when it came time to sit down with interested parties.
The S1 tethered tests may well have provided all that was necessary for the buyers of strats, and these small proto's either never existed or perhaps will be revealed at another time. We leave it at that.
S-1b prototype (after the miniature flight able models)
began construction with Vern & company (pre-NASA) and was to attain 90ft in length, and involved darcon & aluminum rather than Tedlar and carbon parts. How far this team got, am not sure, personally view this version as the first (though uncompleted) large-sized Stratellite.
S-1c
The coming aboard of NASA folks radically changed the dimensions/materials/ and perhaps even Vern's vision/self on project. Personally view it as a new beast, but Bob J. did say they "added" on to the length almost 100ft (or more than doubling the orginal length).
S-2 First flyable version (which AV Press article describes)
My hunch, for what it's worth, is Strat will follow project pattern to construct to maximum facility length. 400 ft. is my guess at S-2 length. Also, with this length, believe this vehicle will allow the company to skip the production-grade full sized test version.
Notice the wording in AV article " a third vehicle is expected to follow". Am thinking that the NASA program stuff is going to help make this immediate jump to full-sized version happen. 360K money for NASA simulator might also play into skipping a step....we'll see of course.
Also, this move by Tim would help recover some of lost time resulting from FAA clearance delays & and makes sense for at least three reasons:
1)flight able to 65,000ft (smaller Strat under 400ft would not be).
2)full sized component comparision tests
3) FAA flight certification tests for remote pilots would certainly be valid if using an actual full-sized Strat.
Anyway, am really off on a tangent here, sorry....typical sign for a NAP! lol.
Again liked the list Sebass and thanks for the post!
pete
Tim Huff bought 4000 more shares today
GTE -- GlobeTel Communications Corp.
Com ($0.00001)(New)
FORM 4 [ ] Check this box if no longer subject to Section 16. Form 4 or Form 5 obligations may continue. See Instruction 1(b).
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES
OMB APPROVAL
OMB Number: 3235-0287
Expires: January 31, 2005
Estimated average burden
hours per response... 0.5
Filed pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 17(a) of the Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 or Section 30(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
1. Name and Address of Reporting Person *
HUFF TIMOTHY 2. Issuer Name and Ticker or Trading Symbol
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP [ GTE ] 5. Relationship of Reporting Person(s) to Issuer (Check all applicable)
__ X __ Director _____ 10% Owner
__ X __ Officer (give title below) _____ Other (specify below)
Chief Executive Officer
(Last) (First) (Middle)
9050 PINES BLVD., SUITE 110 3. Date of Earliest Transaction (MM/DD/YYYY)
7/11/2005
(Street)
PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33024
(City) (State) (Zip) 4. If Amendment, Date Original Filed (MM/DD/YYYY)
6. Individual or Joint/Group Filing (Check Applicable Line)
_ X _ Form filed by One Reporting Person
___ Form filed by More than One Reporting Person
Table I - Non-Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
1.Title of Security
(Instr. 3) 2. Transaction Date (MM/DD/YYYY) 2A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (MM/DD/YYYY) 3. Transaction Code
(Instr. 8) 4. Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D)
(Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s)
(Instr. 3 and 4) 6. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 7. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
Code V Amount (A) or (D) Price
Common Stock 7/11/2005 P 4000 A $2.30 4020389 D
Table II - Derivative Securities Beneficially Owned ( e.g. , puts, calls, warrants, options, convertible securities)
1. Title of Derivate Security
(Instr. 3) 2. Conversion or Exercise Price of Derivative Security 3. Transaction Date (MM/DD/YYYY) 3A. Deemed Execution Date, if any (MM/DD/YYYY) 4. Transaction Code
(Instr. 8) 5. Number of Derivative Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D)
(Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 6. Date Exercisable and Expiration Date 7. Title and Amount of Securities Underlying Derivative Security
(Instr. 3 and 4) 8. Price of Derivative Security
(Instr. 5) 9. Number of derivative Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 4) 10. Ownership Form of Derivative Security: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 11. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
Code V (A) (D) Date Exercisable Expiration Date Title Amount or Number of Shares
Explanation of Responses:
Reporting Owners
Reporting Owner Name / Address Relationships
Director 10% Owner Officer Other
HUFF TIMOTHY
9050 PINES BLVD., SUITE 110
PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33024 X
Chief Executive Officer
Signatures
/s/ Timothy Huff 7/11/2005
** Signature of Reporting Person Date
Reminder: Report on a separate line for each class of securities beneficially owned directly or indirectly.
* If the form is filed by more than one reporting person, see Instruction 4(b)(v).
** Intentional misstatements or omissions of facts constitute Federal Criminal Violations. See 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 78ff(a).
Note: File three copies of this Form, one of which must be manually signed. If space is insufficient, see Instruction 6 for procedure.
Persons who respond to the collection of information contained in this form are not required to respond unless the form displays a currently valid OMB control number.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Filing
© 2005 / EDGAR Online, Inc.
Huff's purchase was a signal...
Opinion here, but purchase was too small to warrant a confidence boost to the troops. Amount is also too insignificant at $10K (especially considering Huff's large holdings) to concern SEC, so it's a flaming arrow and not a sign of inactivity or quietness.
On Tim's desk is a Gladius, and symbolically (as the student of ancient history he appears to be) he has unshealthed it.
The purchase then represents a lifting of a banner or launch of a flaming arrow (movie GLADIATOR) and a move to battle.
"Soldiers, prepare to engage -it's coming".
....ok, i think i've proved it's time for swami's nap now! lol
Article: UAV density begets growing pains for US forces
Where do UAVs Go From Here?
Editorial by Robert S. Dudney, Editor in Chief
Air Force Magazine
Article summary: As US armed forces rush to expand Unmanned Aerial Vehicle category, problems of standardization/coordination develop; USAF manuevers to control.
Quote: "We have 750 UAVs over in Iraq right now.”
Gen. John P. Jumper to the Royal United Services Institute in London
[Could not believe the volume of these crafts over one country; this kind of reliance bodes well for anyone in the UAV/HAA market in my opinion....pete :^)]
http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2005/0705edit.asp
July 2005, Vol. 88, No. 7
By Robert S. Dudney, Editor in Chief
Where Do UAVs Go From Here?
The effort has become disjointed, pulled apart by “tribal jealousies.”
Within 10 years, one-third of US ... deep strike aircraft will be unmanned,” said Congress’ 2001 defense bill. This claim, while shocking at the time, seems much less so in retrospect.
Indeed, unmanned aerial vehicles, in general, have advanced further and faster than had once seemed possible. Previously, the services had only a handful of UAVs; today, they operate upwards of 1,000 remotely piloted aircraft and are clamoring for more, given that many of these systems have proved their operational worth in Afghanistan and Iraq.
While most UAVs today are nonlethal, DOD’s soon-to-be $3 billion-per-year program aims to give them a share of the strike mission, too.
Ironically, however, the very success of UAVs—with the prospect for their heavier employment—has created serious problems which could limit their future usefulness. Gen. John P. Jumper, the Air Force Chief of Staff, argues with considerable force that the effort has become disjointed, pulled apart by the “tribal jealousies” among the various US armed services.
In fact, the Air Force has proposed to the Pentagon that it make USAF the “executive agent” to take the lead in coordinating various UAV efforts. The idea does not set well with the other armed services, but the debate isn’t over yet.
The fact that something must be done has become all too apparent.
One problem concerns UAV development. Each service has gone its own way working its UAV projects. In recent remarks to a Heritage Foundation audience in Washington, D.C., Jumper said, “We’ve got a plethora of people ... selling their UAVs [to the various services] out of their back pocket.”
At present, the UAV fleet comprises about 300 Air Force systems, 600 Army aircraft, and 150 Navy/Marine Corps vehicles.
There are currently five major UAVs in the fleet—the USAF Predator and Global Hawk; the Army Hunter and Shadow; and the Navy/Marine Corps Pioneer. Counting smaller systems, the armed services are operating approximately one dozen UAV types. Others are on the drawing boards.
The Lone Ranger approach to UAV development, critics maintain, ensures wasteful duplication of effort that will reduce the total capability of the fleet. There are no standards for logistics, training, or ground stations.
Worse, actual UAV operations are unfolding in a dangerously improvisational fashion.
Coordination is spotty. The USAF Predator and Global Hawk, for example, are controlled by a joint force air component commander, as are manned aircraft. Such is not the case, however, with Army UAVs, which directly support ground units. They are controlled by the land commander, not the “air boss.”
“We have 750 UAVs over in Iraq right now,” Jumper told the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Everybody wants their own.”
He explained that, under such conditions, it is difficult to organize the UAVs so that they can be in the right place at the right time.
With so many aircraft over the battlespace, the skies are crowded, and some pilots are unhappy about sharing airspace with the drones. They have cause; there have been at least two collisions and several near misses.
Safety isn’t the only problem. Jumper told the Heritage group that, with so many operators using the same radio frequencies, “we’re jamming each other.”
Right now, Jumper went on, the airspace is uncontested, but the problems would grow exponentially should an enemy challenge US dominance.
In the Air Force’s view, creating an executive agent for UAVs would streamline the way UAVs are acquired and managed, unifying and thus strengthening the whole apparatus. It would also foster common operational concepts and procedures.
The Air Force believes—rightly, in our view—that it has the best claim to this role. Officials note that the Air Force has the mission of airspace control. They also claim USAF has had more and longer experience with UAVs.
USAF’s commitment seems destined to grow in years ahead. For one thing, the Pentagon has put the Air Force in charge of the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System, the goal of which is to produce at least two UAV strike aircraft.
It was Jumper himself who conceived the idea of arming the Predator with Hellfire missiles. Such innovation seems certain to go on, given the establishment of an Air Force UAV Center of Excellence near Nellis AFB, Nev.
Moreover, USAF has announced plans to expand its current Predator fleet from three to as many as 15 squadrons.
It is said that the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps believe that more coordination is necessary but that they see no valid need for an executive agent. They are worried that USAF, if given such a specific legal role, would exercise undue power over their system requirements, funding, and technologies.
At present, Pentagon officials are similarly chary about the plan. They seem to be leaning toward splitting the UAV world into two segments—one comprising small UAVs and another for larger aircraft, though this could create more problems than it solves.
Jumper doesn’t insist on any particular plan, so long as it produces coordination. “What we do have to do,” he said, “is get everybody under the same roof, talking the same language, organizing ourselves toward a single purpose, and stop worrying about ownership issues.”
We think the Air Force has a good case. It has clearly challenged some powerful interests. The outcome is uncertain. Stay tuned.
Jimcognito & all regarding AEROS competitor
Jim, you are absolutely correct about AEROS operating out of Plant 42 near Edwards. They occupy Site 9. You can find a fairly informative article about them (March 2005) here at Post #7391.
Personally have seen their craft (Sky Dragon) in operation, flying untethered above their facilities. It's 143ft long and
key word here, Manned. Considering that AREOS is an established airship company, observing that craft fly was, well, especially painful.Very Herky-Jerky and ungainly
(airsickness bag mandatory) and also very much Non-rigid. Let us hope that was a new pilot they were training.....:)
From articles/PR's and AEROS' website, one could take a stab at the evolvement in this company's vision:
Current traditional non-rigid (w/maybe semi) business, expanding into manned heavy-lift vehicle with a side order of surveillance at 7500ft, followed with a recently tacked-on parallel program into rigid unmanned autonomous design expressing stratospheric intentions. -They are an airship company, Why not?
To those readers concerned about this company as immediate competition to GTE Strat., and more importantly as it would pertain to lead-time advantage, personally do not see an immediate challenge.
The latest AEROS PR read:
"The Aeros High Altitude Airship Advanced Technology Demonstrator Program includes 2 stages: the Article TX-1 and Article TX-2. Aeros has successfully completed Article TX-1 – the Launch and Recovery Practicability Demonstrator. Aeros has recently begun the next stage Article TX-2, which includes engineering the main system Integration and operational demonstrator..."
This PR does not state that Aeros has even build a rigid, autonomous stratospheric airship (TX-1) as their "Launch and Recovery Practicability Demonstrator."
It is quite possible that the launching and recovery of the non-rigid airship Sky Dragon fulfills the Article TX-1 event. Certainly, with Aeros having just recently entered into Article-TX-2 verifies that an "operational demonstator" (stratospheric) is still being "engineered". Would it be too bold to suppose that "engineering" here may well imply more than just -construction from Blueprints.....?
Opinion here, suspect AEROS to face similar design issues
that have impeded both Lockheed (development delays into 2007) and JAXA (builders of Japanese and European consortium airship)
as they wait on R&D to develop Carbon/Poly rigid skin.
Do not mean to imply here that GTE/Sanswire have licked the Stratospheric airship conundrum, only that they currently have something ready for full testing at near-stratospheric heights.
Hope this helps,
pete
Solid article on Tech. performance of Airship telecom
Article covers a telecom performance test by Capanina, a
HAP's-focused consortium of mostly European/Japanese entities (some business some gov't). Similar in concept (but don't recall Sanswire opertating within 31/28 GHz millimetre-wave band) to the test Sanswire performed in July 2004.
http://www.physorg.com/news3844.html
Lofty Wireless Platforms For High Speed Broadband
April 23, 2005
Floating high in the sky, tethered balloons may soon be a welcome sight for broadband users outside cities. Trials in England recently demonstrated these aerial platforms can wirelessly deliver data up to 200 times faster than an ordinary wired broadband connection.
The test was conducted under the IST project Capanina, now studying the use of wireless and optical broadband technologies from high-altitude platforms (HAPs). A typical HAP is an airship that floats at an altitude of 20 km. The test called on equipment operating in the 31/28 GHz millimetre-wave band. These frequencies are much higher than today’s fixed wireless access links and enable higher data rates, but their signals can for example be affected by rain.
According to project contact Alan Gobbi, ‘stratospheric broadband’ fills the gap between satellite and terrestrial wireless technologies. “Place airships fitted with these communications technologies every 60 km, in a grid configuration, and you would have complete coverage of everywhere on the ground. You could offer everything from mobile phone calls to high-definition TV.”
The project’s target data rate is 120 Mbits/sec, currently much faster than the fastest ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) connection. In the trial, the partners even achieved 270 Mbits/sec using a free-space optical link.
If ADSL speeds cannot keep pace with evolving multimedia applications, HAPs could step in. “These platforms could provide low-cost broadband for suburban and rural areas where there are no alternatives,” says Gobbi. “But we are not saying HAP-based broadband will replace ADSL in city centres.”
Besides offering wide-area coverage, this technology has another major benefit. “The cost of establishing an HAP-related communications device is one-tenth the cost of a satellite. In terms of a satellite’s ability to serve multiple users on the ground with broadband, HAPs can support one thousand times more people,” says Gobbi. “They could offer cheaper solutions for medium-density areas, filling the gap between cables/fibre for high-density cities and satellite for sparsely populated areas.”
HAP technology could even serve passengers on a train travelling up to 300 km/hour. It would involve steerable antennas, on the airship and vehicle, with sophisticated beam control. The project’s partners are studying related issues, such as the need for line-of-sight communication at these high frequencies and signal break-up due to tunnels.
Two more HAP trials are planned. In August 2005, an untethered balloon will be flown in the lower end of the stratosphere over Sweden, testing HAP performance in extreme cold and the effect of a balloon bobbing around. In the summer of 2006, the partners will team up with the Communications Research Laboratory of Japan for a global HAP trial involving solar-powered unmanned aircraft.
“Our trials proved the concept of aerial platforms delivering reliable optical high-speed communications,” says Gobbi. He believes broadband delivered from HAPs to fixed users could be a reality within three to five years, with services to travelling users coming two years later.
But he recognises this will require more industrial effort, especially for setting up the infrastructure: “The partners have their own exploitation plan. If there are gaps, we will link up with other organisations and service providers.” For an innovative follow-up project, Gobbi would like to study the delivery from airships of WiMAX, the increasingly popular broadband wireless standard.
Source: IST Results
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Personal thoughts:
It's nice to see the performance level so high, for potentially,
the next generation in telecom. A lower cost basis on delivery is great, along with retrofiting ablilites etc., but such higher performance i personally was not aware of.
Capanina, the euro version of a strat, had been studying the whole HAPS concept for some time. Having solidified their financial position in 2004, they are starting to move forward into developing airship telecom having combined forces with it's Japanese counterpart. European end focusing on commercial aspects of communications offering, while JP emphasis rests on the airship construct. This partnership appears on the surface to represent an attempt to fasttrack this project to market.
^swami
SatMagazine coverstory includes Stratellite services
www.satmagazine.com
Feb. 2005 "Satellites & WI-FI" (cover story)
by Virgil Labrador
page. 23
As part of an account on the Satellite industry's expansion into Wi-Fi, this article goes on to describe several service providers (current or future). Listed were Hughes' DIRECWAY wi-fi access, CONNEXION (Boeing), others, and an extended section on the Sanswire Stratellite (oddly as "Satellite/Stratellite").
Picture and description was very complementary, but no new insights for investors. It's just very complimentary to see the Satellite media/industry notice and seriously consider the competititon.
Below is a copy (retyped from printed version, so no picture and excuse any typos. -swami
------------------------
Satellites,Stratellites.
An enterprising company, Sanswire Network, which has been providing Wi-Fi access since 1996, is planning to put up a fleet of airships called "stratellites" 65,000 feet (or about 13 miles)
in the stratosphere. The airships will act like satellites and provide two-way internet access to hotspots on the ground using Wi-Fi technology. At 13 miles above the earth the stratellites will be able to cover over 300,000 miles on the ground. Sanswire plans to put up one of these stratellites in each major metropolitan area of the U.S.
The satellites [they used "satellite" here but may have meant strat. -swami] will be solar-powered to enable it to move with the earth's rotation, so that it appears to be in the same place from a vantage point on the ground, much like a geosynchronous satellite.
One advantage stratellites will have over conventional satellites is that being much lower in altitiude, it does not have the latency or delay that are inherent in geo satellites. They are also projected to cost at a fraction of geo satellites and are reusable.
Article continues.. with other wi-fi initiatives.
longtime TWVN7pps,
Just wanted to comment on your question about patent applications & Sanswire. Personally recall having read several posts on another board from people who have shared their email responses from Michael Molen (Sanswire)stating that
patents (plural) have been filed.
Please, bear in mind, that this info was not taken from any official Press Releases, 10Q/K's, or from any of our company websites (that i am personally familiar with). This patent info then is obviously of questionable value, and suggest you contact the source yourself.
Michael K. Molen mmolen@sanswire.com.
Hope this helps.
pete
Caradoc & RagingBull Msg. 310313
Thanks for making the run out to Norton, was tempted myself but, just lazy. Great post and am glad to be reading you again. It's been awhile. Missed ya.
pete
Lowcien
Having business in the Plant 42 area and fairly close to Edwards AFB (but never driving to the facility), it was a surprise to find, as you say, that they are not one and the same.
They are though, just a few miles a part at the southern most point of Edwards. That is what lead to my confusion. Just thought they were connected.
The Strat/Dragon were never viewed as direct competitors (as was stated in the initial post.... though Surveillance is a common thread in both) the reason for the message was just sharing the excitement at actually seeing so much activity in general Airship development and knowing that soon Sanswire One would be going through it's own rollout.
Having been an investor for year and a half and posting a far share on Ragingbull, i quess it was just cool seeing how close we are to making history. I know you share this excitement as do all on this board (kinda why am hanging the ol' hat here).
Good luck to us all,
swami
p.s. Just to keep us both accurate, here's some info....
http://www.edwards.af.mil/tours/images/vicinity.jpg
Plant 42 and site 9 Can be seen from 14 fwy. On the map it would correspond to the hexagon "airport" symbol by the city name "Palmdale" on the map. It stretches much farther northward then hex illustrates.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Qh7TZuMfb_EJ:www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/plant42.htm...
quote from above link:
"Air Force Plant 42 is located at Palmdale, California. It is just a few miles south of Edwards AFB."
Parallel Airship Program Currently Testing at Edwards: Article
While not a direct competitor of the Sanswire Stratellite, Aeros' airship Sky Dragon(envisioned as an equip. & troop transport)is currently being tested at Plant 42 (Skunk Works) Edward's Air Force Base.
Having personally seen this vehicle test a few weeks back,
[note:it was very ungainly at times, literally lurching up-and-down-and-all-around the sky. Thought for a second it was our Strat. but saw it manned -thank God!]
and now having read today's article on it, am just really stuck by the physical reality that we are on the cusp of a new era of transportation/communication/surveillance/what-have-you. And to be invested, at an early stage, into what well appears to be a substantial industrial player with the Stratellite (assuming all tests perform satisfactorily)leaves a person feeling giddy. Not queasy, like the pilot witnessed manning the Sky Dragon...lol.
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20950~2756002,00.html
Article Published: Friday, March 11, 2005 - 12:00:00 AM PST
Tarzana-based Aeros is testing a 143-foot-long airship called Sky Dragon out of Site 9 adjoining U.S. Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale. (Jeff Goldwater / LA Daily News)
Airship flight tests from Site 9 hangar
By Jim Skeen, Staff Writer
PALMDALE -- A Tarzana company is using part of the former B-1B bomber assembly plant as a base for flight testing an airship that can be used for surveillance missions.Aeros is flight testing its 40B "Sky Dragon," a 143-foot-long lighter-than-air craft from Site 9, adjacent to Air Force Plant 42. Aeros is leasing one of the two massive hangars at Site 9 where the B-1B fleet was produced in the 1980s and has more recently been used as a soundstage for the filming of the movie "The Terminal" with Tom Hanks.
"We're using Site 9 to carry out flight testing and pilot training for the airship," said company vice president Fred Edworthy. "We can't say a lot."
Company officials are planning an event on March 22 in which they will be able to disclose who their customer is for the project.
The work, which involves a cadre of about 12 workers, is expected to wrap up in early April. The company will conduct about another 20 hours of flying with the airship. In general, the flights will be conducted in the morning before the afternoon winds pick up, Edworthy said.
The craft is able to fly up to 7,500 feet in altitude at up to 51 mph and stay aloft for 24 hours.
The company is operating out of Site 9 on a 90-day lease with Los Angeles World Airports, but there is a possibility of additional work in Palmdale.
The company is among those seeking contracts from the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency to develop technologies for an airship that would be capable of transporting personnel and equipment to battle areas.
DAPRA envisions an airship able to transport 500 tons across intercontinental distances and would be capable of operating from unimproved landing sites.
Site 9 would be an ideal place to conduct work on the program, Edworthy said.
DAPRA is expected to award as many as three contracts in June under the first phase of the program, which is dubbed Walrus.
Jim Skeen, (661) 267-5743 james.skeen@dailynews.com
NASA Eyes Stratellite for Surveillance: Research Paper
----------------------------
Quick note to Rocky and all,
Hope you can use one more poster on this board. Personally find your site most informative & encouraging. Thanks Rock for all your efforts here and to all other contributors.
-----------------------------
High-Altitude, Long-Endurance Airships
For Coastal Surveillance
Feb. 2005
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6-WOc6YXWPUJ:gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-213427.pdf...
or this link:
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-213427.pdf.
Here's a meaty piece put out by NASA on a subject most would not consider as falling within the scope of this governmental agency: SPYING.
Covering both the minimal and optimal requirements for coastal surveillance, the paper delves deeply into the feasibility of airship use (Notation of Sanswire/Stratellite can be found in the Reference section of the paper).
One area less emphasized in the research (and with obvious benefits) is the concept of stationary airships. Perhaps, this is one of many attributes NASA finds intriguing with Sanswire's Stratellite project.
Here's just the Abstract.
swami-
ABSTRACT:
A high altitude solar powered airship provides the ability to carry large payloads to high altitudes and remain on station
for extended periods of time. This study examines applications and background of this type of concept vehicle, reviews
the history of high altitude flight and provides a point design analysis. The capabilities and limitations of the airship are
demonstrated and possible solutions are proposed. Factors such as time of year, latitude, wind speeds, and payload are
considered in establishing the capabilities of the airship. East and west coast operation is evaluated. The key aspect to
success of this type of airship is the design and operation of the propulsion and power system. A preliminary propulsion/
power system design was produced based on a regenerative fuel cell energy storage system and solar photovoltaic array
for energy production. Results on power system requirements for year long operation is presented.