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.
I have to agree....
But that doesn't mean you're right, Cole!
Excellent points, though, consistent w/my experience operating FLIR.
Maybe there's an explaination - had better be a good one.
A short video through the camera zooming in & out might defuse my skepticism.
Great work, Nil. MUCH appreciated.
Sky
"Even after all that money, they are still working with the DOD to find more funding for their HAA program."
??????? Whiskey Tango.....?
You make it sound like we should be thankful, Cole.
You bet your bottom they want more money...they always do! Esp when the first $100M+ comes so easy....
IMO, Lock Mart wants to recoup the money they sank into a hangar after Air Force led them to believe it was going to get in HAA in a big way...Appears to me that the Near Space initiative lost steam after General Jumper retired.
On a separate note: I just found this paper - haven't read it yet, but it does highlight many of the other technologies that may be able to provide the desired effects warfighters need.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cadre/ari_2005-01.pdf
No evidence? Really.
I encourage you to read this carefully before responding.
If you put advertising and procurment costs aside, how much do you think it would cost to operate a fixed or rotary wing UAV with the same television camera and downlink equipment capability as the Goodyear blimp for the Superbowl, or better, an entire season?
Now move the Superbowl 120 miles from the nearest landing strip.
OK - now consider the procurement cost...which vehicle do you think costs more to buy - remembering that the capability needs to remain the same?
The evidence is out there - you need to make the right associations.
You may be perfectly correct saying that a Sanswire product will nevery work - only time will. But the reason I remain vested is because I know they are on the right track -- to capture the extreme capabability of LTA. I'll be the first to say LTA has its fair share of challenges - EVERY platform has unique care and feeding requirements.
Bottom line, DoD is wasting $B of dollars a year by using HTA aircraft in the 10's of $K's/hr on manned/unmanned low-risk surveillance in spite of a plethora of operational metrics supporting LTA capability and affordability.
"What is already out there goes higher, faster and carries a larger payload."
Cole, you're looking at this problem through a soda straw.
The platforms you refer to are far more expensive to buy and operate...and the more capable ones require runways. Do a little DD on Scan Eagle and see how many $M we've poured into that "ISR" platform.
You keep forgetting affordability, which is capability in and of itself. Anti-access is a constraint that has the pentagon wringing its hands.
As far as payload is concerned, you're not comparing apples to apples, airships can be scaled up to carry very large loads...but that's not really the issue here.
BTW - that altitude puts it outside the effective range of most small arms.
Who's calling it a stratellite? It is clearly is not capable of strat altitudes. Why are you confused?
Frankly, I'm impressed. And so will our soldiers/marines be if they pull off a credible sensor downlink demonstration.
And....solar power in airships is a necessary developmental stepping stone toward strat capability.
One of the biggest mistakes this company made from the beginning was underestimating the challenges of high altitude AND extreme endurance. The vision was and still is sound, but attempting to get there without a low/mid-altitude experimentation phase was a poor decision.
I wish they had used a conventional blimps to experiment with - and still believe they should do so with a Hotzone demo.
Owl - I caution you not to trivialize autopilot....it remains a grand challenge for large airships in the landing/recovery phase.
Cole,
You are obviously way out of your element on this topic. I didn't want to throw this card down, but here goes. I am a weapons and tactics instructor...have been for many years - I teach this kind of material to combat pilots.
Here's my challenge for you. I'll let you pick a surveillance/ISR mission, area of operation, and order of battle - then we can compare notes regarding the most effective surveillance conops.
Hit me.
Sky
I can tell you that right now the military is reeling from the magnitude of fuel bills being levied upon it right now.
DoD is always interested in capturing efficiencies (particularly fuel), provided as you infer, they don't compromise mission effectiveness.
Please refresh me, Cole. I can't recall a single post from you highlighting a non-tethered LTA vehicle currently used by the military. I would really appreciate a redirect to that information.
Hey Cole - I see this kind of hype all the time...can you prove one was ever built and performed as advertised?
Interesting, that you would say that.
If you go back to the Spring of this ear, you'll see I take Vern to task a few times.
Vern is good man. Let him go with dignity.
I have no insight to either platform's design. What I do know is that blimps, primarily one large gas bag, typically with one or more ballonets, are very durable in the face of small arms.
Something to think about....when that bad guys learn that know matter how many shots they take at the airship, nothing happens, except that they always get caught, then airship presence will eventually infuence potential perpetrator behavior. When you can see it, it can see you - bad guys will move to where the ship isn't. At night it can be lighted and seen for great distances and become possibly even more effective. You want the ship to be seen.
This is the paradigm I've encouraged for operations involving our soldiers in Iraq and afghanistan - and it runs counter to our typical tactics...which try to catch bad guys in the act...whereas conspicuous ships can prevent the act in the first place. Affordable, continuous overhead presence is something all the soldiers want - and they don't care what it is, as long as it's effective. Fixed wing and rotary wing wing aviators, on the other hand, are scared to death that such a grotesque flying machine might put them out of a job....so they (with few exceptions) violently oppose the notion of surveillance airships.
Sorry to get on my soapbox....
Right on, Crash.
You're missing the point. Border surveillance might be an ideal use of a ship that is affordable to buy and operate. Compared to the cost of operating fixed/rotary wing, if a criminal is lucky enough to hit it and bring an LTA vehicle down from 3500 ft, you might be able to afford to lose it.
And remember - airships are hard to hear....making them extremely effective at night.
Think tactical.
Sky
BTW - that was a piloted ship (2 pax).
It was an impressive demonstration - but they do have power and controllability issues...the sphere concept is intriquing, but hasn't worked out as they had hoped.
Sorry - your post reveals a lack of operational insight and surveillance cost per hour reality when contrasted with conventional aircraft, including fixed/rotary wing UAVs. I'm not trying to slam you - but your argument is one I've heard many many times, and doesn't hold up in cost/performance/mission risk tradeoff comparisons between various airborne platforms.
Fact is - airships are very hard to shoot down with small arms. The bullets pass through with small entry/exits....it takes days for them to lose buoyancy. A ship hit with hundreds of rounds can take many hours to lose appreciable lift.
BTW - commercial blimps experience an occasional round from time to time - most often over Texas! The holes are usually found during scheduled envelope inspections.
People that use the this vulnerability argument to snub airship potential are often the least educated in airship capability. As a career military helo pilot, I'd take my chances in a blimp over a helo when it comes to taking rounds at relatively low altitude.
Thanks Cole. I heard it leaks like a sieve. Can you tell us more?
Mide
Is the Hotzone 48 volts input or output?
48 volts DC input (power rqmnt) makes sense, and can easiily be accomplished with (4) 12 volt cells connected in series (or 8 six volt cells). Being that it only draws 1.2 amps, you don't need car battery sized cells (unless you intend to operate all night). Remember, this is only for the mission package (Hotzone), not propulsion (different problem)..
Bottom line - the cells can be arranged to allow a 12 volt charging system to devlop higher operating voltages (48v in this case). If I recall my EE correctly power (watts) = volts X amps. So we're talking 48 * 1.2 = 57.6 Watts....roughly 60 watts (equivalent a single AC light bulb).
It makes no sense whatsoever to involve ac inverters, unless there is a hard requirement for AC (unlikely IMO).
"Monterosso and Vargas created $119 million in fake invoices and caused GlobeTel to overstate its revenue for two years."
I wonder what other fake documents might have been created, and possibly posted on a commonly referenced website. What do you think, Sam?
Good post, Jet. I appreciate your honesty. The questions you pose are good ones, and may be the reason for the GTEM Wells Notice.
Yep - desperate sniping, it seems, and old news regarding an amatuer-ish test of SANSI...
What does it prove? Hard to say from just the film...and may depict a response unique to the tethered test and not a response that would be encountered in untethered flight.
Professionals would recognize this; perhaps they did.
Doesn't mean much without complete factual information/context, especially SANS2!
Good questions. Do we know if Khoury has a severance entitlement, or is it an assumption?
I am inclined to agree.
OK folks - new assignment.
Does Trimax or Globetel hold any no-kidding patents? Or are they touting similar capability based upon commercial standards? Please forgive me if this has been presented in the past...
And just so you know - I'm an aviator and digital architect...I don't claim to know anything about patent law.
Thanks in advance,
Sky
Roger all. Duly noted. Thanks, Crash.
So it's illegal to imbed a competitor's mark/label in a webpage so search engines will associate your product with theirs?
You're speaking Greek to me, Crash....please tell me in kindergarten terms why this is critically important. It's all legal/permissable isn't it?
Thanks.
Sky
Is this old news? Is there any releavence to the abandonment date at the bottom?
Word Mark HOTZONE
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: communication networks, namely computer hardware for managing and implementing communications by and between components of a telecommunications network, namely radio data transmission; computer hardware equipment for data transmission comprised of modem, radio based stations, mobile stations, repeater stations, rely stations, user stations, and control equipment namely, wireless switching and routing apparatus, frequency hopping systems, cellular infrastructure and data networks
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78452937
Filing Date July 19, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition June 21, 2005
Owner (APPLICANT) Altavater, Ulrich INDIVIDUAL FED REP GERMANY 6660 Bottlebrush Lane Naples FLORIDA 34109
(APPLICANT) Simpson, Anthony Glenn INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 4573 Exchange Ave. Suite 7 Naples FLORIDA 34104
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date March 14, 2006
Thanks to all for the vectors to Hotzone info. Interesting so far....
Sky
Pagan - the link worked first time I went to , but now I get a "session expired" response. Attempts to access thru the trademark link have been unsucessful....can you assist me....again?
Thanks.
Can someone kindly direct me to the sites that document Hotzone technology rights/patents?
I'm taking the time this weekend to review Trimax claims as well as evlauate CWID performance documentation.
Any recent NMC performance info/assessments would also be appreciated.
Sky
Great info. I think many posters will appreciate the insight.
Best regards,
Sky
Jet, as I believe you are an aviation mechanic, I am hopeful that you can also help our friend Cole understand that overhaul is a term used commonly throughout aviation -- and, presuming he flies commercially, it's likely with the support of many, many overhauled components, including engines.
That being said, IMO, SEC used the term overhaul for economy of words and nothing else. SA2 is new with little dynamic wear, therefore nothing to overhaul. The fact that strat development is high risk any way you cut it, then changes (including engineering) are a given.
I agree with your last statement. But not the all the above.
Yes, the British led development of the hybrid design and a scaled flying model (Skykitten) - and likely collaborated with LM to produce P791.
DARPA's Walrus program did not fund P-791 as it (Walrus) hardly got started before it was canx'd. However, LM was one of two companies to win DARPA contracts for Phase One Walrus development (design/feasability studies).
Although I can't prove it, I believe that emergence of P-791 led to the demise of Walrus.
Congress scrapped Walrus, not P791. IMO, the rationale to do so was likely based on the LM's progress...no need for the govt to develop a capability with commerical industry already close.
P791 is a hybrid - and technically heavier than air. It gererates lift statically (w/helium) and dynamically (lifting body).
It is envisioned to become an extreme triphibian heavy lifter that will compete with ships and large transport aircraft. Primary advantage is ability to deliver ready to fight units in days in unprepared regions or waterways. There is significant commercial interest. To my knowledge, P-791 was privately funded.
This is not a high altitude air vehicle.