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 guess it is plain to everyone that the unfair part about it is the naked aspect, which gives disproportional weight and momentum to a legitimate short position while undermining a long position. Further, if there is not a way to absolutely excise this form of corruption, then shorting in its entirety should be illegal, imo.
Nerd, Intel wants its wimax standard to be accepted worldwide, hence the billions spent on promoting it everywhere around the world including building a tower on an island in the Amazon river and giving away laptops for beaming to satellites via the tower, (I read stratellite instead of the very expensive tower http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06268/723469-96.stm ).
Think what a disaster the Russian deal would have been for Intel.
AP article still being picked up today:
http://www.redding.com/redd/nw_business/article/0,2232,REDD_17527_5014378,00.html
What is good about VosBrazil and ILigue right now is that they are essentially beta sites for GTE's voip package. In free markets GTE voip will compete head to head with others like Skype etc. (or maybe we make it proprietary to our DECT hardware; I don't know how this is evolving) But in places like China or others, where the government wants to have control and monitoring powers, a proven proprietary voip system may be an attractive add-on for a company offering to roll out a national broadband wireless network.
..and I think that DECT could be the key in this country also, and perhaps that is why telcos hate us.
Thank you for your good information from Germany.
Wireless broadband is the next big thing since the internet. We have a paradigm shifting deployment occuring in a city in Germany that will forever transform the way people in that city live. It has the special advantage of being capable of providing DECT wireless telephone service as an integral feature of the radios that are installed and being tested. We are developing the stratellite; a device that if successful will provide a new paradigm shift on top of the first paradigm shift. Seems like this could turn out to be pretty good investment, imho.
Upon reading the good news I was reminded of a post by Low that must go back six months or more that basically stated how if Huff really wished to do longs a favor and give the shorts some grief, then he should release good news after hours. That is what we have here, and I don't remember this happening before, so let's hope it works.
Once again Edwards Air Force Base is on standby to land the Space Shuttle if weather at Kennedy deteriorates. Once again, it is my speculation that there is no way on earth that NASA or Edwards would ever consider allowing private contractors to conduct operations within the Shuttle's recovery (or launch) operational window. By way of further speculation on my part, as a private contractor I would not be enamored of the idea of starting testing during the time period beginnng after the end of the shuttle's launch window and the start of the shuttle's recovery window even if restrictions were lifted by NASA and the Base during that interim time period. If the duration of the planned testing schedule exceeded the duration of the interim opportunity period, the cost of the testing operations would be increased by the requirement of two startups and two shutdowns as opposed to a single startup, testing, and a single shutdown. So I think it is quite possible that when the shuttle was delayed for two weeks starting August 27th, that strat testing may have been postponed the whole time between then and the planned landing this week. All imo.
In my opinion your post should read along the lines of; The only thing that I can think of that logically explains it... There is a big difference between an empirical statement saying there is only one logical explanation and an opinion to the same affect. If you have inside knowledge, please share it.
There should be action on this by the end of the month.
Private Firms Vie For U.S. Border Security Contracts
2006-09-18 00:36:15
Posted By: Intellpuke
(Read 62 times || 0 comments)
If Northrop Grumman Corp. gets the multibillion-dollar contract to secure America's borders, the sky above the Rio Grande would be thick with drones.
Cellphone maker Ericsson Inc. thinks drones are largely a waste and would focus instead on giving Border Patrol agents wireless devices capable of receiving live video.
Boeing Co. would build high-tech towers, lining the borders with 1,800 of them.
For Lockheed Martin Corp., blimps are a big part of the solution. And for Raytheon Co., the key is letting agents watch incidents unfold on Google Earth.
Free Online Dating
Browse Photos and Meet Singles Today! Metrodate.com
Meet Fun, Sexy Singles! Free Profile & pics! Turn Your PC into SuperTV
Click here to watch 1000+ TV channels in 2 minutes CHEAT AT ONLINE POKER!
Do Not Play Poker Online Until You Learn How to Cheat! PIMP YOUR CELL!
Get 10 BONUS Ringtones Today!
Your Ad Here
Those are the plans, anyway. The questions now are which company will win the rights to put its technology into play, and how well any of it will actually work in helping the United States gain control of its notoriously porous borders.
The Department of Homeland Security is expected within days to name a winner in a competition that could permanently change the way the United States conducts surveillance, apprehension and detention operations along its northern and southern boundaries. The choice promises to lend significant insight into how the government sees the future of border security, with firms offering rival visions of how that future looks.
All year, the nation's largest military contractors have been locked in intense competition to team with the government on a program that gives the private sector unusually wide sway over a critical national security issue. Michael P. Jackson, the deputy director of the Homeland Security Department, told the competing firms earlier this year he wanted them "to come back and tell us how to do our business."
The resulting proposals are the latest incarnation of decades' worth of attempts to use technology to create a virtual fence along the border. So far, none have been successful. Recent initiatives have ended with cameras that failed to work in extreme temperatures and millions of dollars wasted.
But with immigration legislation stalled in Congress, Homeland Security officials are gambling that this new effort - known as the Secure Border Initiative - will be their best hope of cutting the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.
Officials say they expect the solution to be in place within four years, but companies say they can get it done sooner. The cost has been pegged at $2 billion but is likely to be higher. No one is downplaying the stakes.
"I don't think the Department of Homeland Security can afford to fail here," said Wayne Esser, who has led Boeing's efforts to capture the contract, which is called SBInet. "This thing is so politically charged. It's very visible."
The program has already garnered heavy criticism from detractors who worry that the government does not know enough about what it is buying and that the program could amount to a costly give-away to the private sector. "It's a little bit scary when the government throws up its hands and says, 'We have no idea how to do this. Please tell us'," said Deborah W. Meyers, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. "It just seems like the government is putting policy in the hands of the contractors."
Homeland Security officials say they decided to contract out the job because they did not have the capacity to do it in-house. But they maintain that they will ultimately call the shots. "I don't want any mistake about who is working for who," Gregory Giddens, director of the Secure Border Initiative, told Congress on Wednesday. "The [contractor] is working for the United States government."
The decision of which contractor to choose is due by the end of the month and is expected as soon as this week. While the competing proposals are similar in their basic outlines, they differ markedly in the details.
All companies, for instance, offer an array of sensors, including infrared, motion and seismic, but they are divided over where to place them - whether to bury them, mount them on towers, or send them airborne attached to planes, helicopters or unmanned aerial vehicles.
Overall, the proposals lean heavily on technology developed for the battlefield. "We're transferring things that are military today into a civil implementation," said Bruce Walker, a Northrop Grumman vice president who has led the California company's efforts.
Walker touted the firm's fleet of UAVs, which includes both the Global Hawk - a plane that soars high to cover large areas - and the KillerBee, a small, low-altitude vehicle that can be used for more-focused missions.
Both vehicles, he said, have sensors with intelligence capabilities that allow them to differentiate between false alarms and genuine threats. "It may be a herd of antelope moving across the border, and you certainly don't want to send a team after that," said Walker.
Swedish cellphone maker Ericsson, meanwhile, is positioning itself as the nonmilitary solution. Doug Smith, the company's vice president for government solutions, said that border security comes down to "a big, broadband wireless problem" and that the most important challenge is to ensure agents have access to communications and timely information.
Ericsson's plan involves giving every Border Patrol agent a personal digital assistant that's not much different from models available on the commercial market. Tall towers lining the border would fend off dead zones and provide much of the surveillance data.
While the company's plan includes some UAVs, their role is minimal. "UAVs aren't reliable enough. They can't fly in bad weather," said Smith. "We don't need a Star Wars-type solution here. We need something that will work."
Boeing's Esser said his team came to a similar conclusion. "UAVs are incredibly expensive to operate," said Esser, citing the size of the vehicles' ground-based crews. "Everybody's real hot on UAVs. But you just can't afford it. It doesn't make sense."
Instead, the Chicago aerospace company has proposed a network of towers - ranging in height from 80 to 200 feet - that would line the northern and southern borders. UAVs would have a more limited role, with agents deploying miniature versions of the vehicles off the back of their trucks.
The final two companies - Lockheed Martin and Raytheon - say they provide a balance of air- and ground-based equipment.
At Bethesda-based Lockheed, the country's largest defense contractor, the company's solution includes a UAV that can be launched by an individual agent, much like a paper airplane, as well as larger Predator drones and tethered balloons known as aerostats. On the ground, the company offers a selection of towers - some fixed, some mobile.
Jay Dragone, the company's vice president of integrated border security solutions, said Lockheed would keep its plan flexible and adjust depending on what helps agents the most. "This is not going to work if it takes the agent a long time to figure out what they're looking at and how to use the systems," he said.
Massachusetts-based Raytheon has developed its solution based on a company-managed program to keep drug-runners and poachers out of the Amazon. Under Raytheon's plan, Border Patrol agents would be able to watch sensor activity and video feeds from their trucks on a display based on the satellite-powered mapping system Google Earth, giving them perspectives on border issues near and far. The company would also provide bar-coded bracelets that could be used to track suspects as they move through the detention system.
Like the other firms, Raytheon has proposed that contractors take over jobs now performed by Border Patrol agents - such as transporting prisoners and mending fences - to give agents more time to focus on their main priority. "We would leave the work of the Border Patrol to the Border Patrol," said Frank Marcinkus, Raytheon's SBInet capture manager.
Outside observers say freeing up agents' time could prove critical to the program's overall success. Additional technology will give agents more data, but won't on its own help stop the flow of people coming across the border, said John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org.
"It doesn't matter how much money you spend on the sensors," said Pike. "If you don't spend a commensurate amount to put agents in Humvees to go out and catch suspects, it won't make a bit of difference. All you'll do is get a better sense of how they're coming in."
Intellpuke: I agree with Ms. Meyers, but I would add that it certainly looks as though the government plans to give billions more to some very wealthy corporations, in much the same way as it gave billions to civilian contractors to set up private disaster/relief companies after Katrina instead of spending it on relief and rebuilding in New Orleans and other devasted communities on the Gulf Coast. You can read this article by Washington Post staff writer Griff Witte in context here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/17/AR2006091700847.html?sub=AR
Rupert Murdoch knows the future is not in satellites. Makes you wonder if he's going to give up on owning distribution or if he has some other direction in mind. Certainly he appeared to be interested in owning wireless until the bidding got too rich at the spectrum auction. Maybe it was a head fake. Possible that he will be satisfied with being a web site on any broadband service and let the technology side take care of itself, wireless or otherwise. Probably all the other cable channels will have their own IPTV sites too, for that matter. Certainly he knows that the bird's a turd for broadband (more or less his words). Gotta believe he'd make a play for providing some kind of broadband service if he thought there was a profit in it, though. Still trying to figure out if he's the 'deep pockets' as many suspect.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds37114.html
Rupert Murdoch is considering dumping News Corp's stake in the American digital satellite TV provider DirecTV, CNBC reported on Friday.
One of the business channel's reporters, David Faber, said that Murdoch had called DirecTV a "turd bird."
It is understood that Murdoch has become frustrated with stagnating subscriber growth at DirecTV, which is having difficulty competing with America's well-established cable operators. In the US, cable operators have long offered subscribers bundled deals of digital TV, video on demand, DVRs, digital phone service and high-speed broadband services. DirecTV has struggled to develop its non-satellite TV operations and subscriber growth has consequently lagged behind expectations.
It is understood that Murdoch is considering selling News Corp's 38.5% stake in DirecTV to QVC owner John Malone and his Liberty Media group in return for Malone's 18% holding in News Corp.
Nerd..yes, but does it run windows? This would be very useful and lightweight equipment on a strat, I imagine. To fly it better and/or to manage an intensive matrix of switching duties. Only $18k+ per copy. Guess we can afford that from the new funding deal. Which reminds me, if we are on the verge or in the process of intensive tests, we are also likely on the verge of or in the process of expending a significant slug of cash. Perhaps that has also helped to precipitate this latest need for an infusion.
Danieeellle... ;) you're holding yourself to a higher standard than that to which you are holding them. A very interesting story and spot on to the point. I suppose staff could be the diff, but this is about the life blood of the company, inadequate staff is an error also. I take your point; let's hope for improvement.
Danielle- your opinion is definately as valid as anyone's. I would ask though, given your experience and knowledge in this area, would you not be on guard against this liability? Sure perhaps a neophyte would get soundly blindsided, but would you? and if not, should they?
Anybody wanna see a cute airship? Her name is "Sky Kitten"! I love when they show an airship flying:
http://www.ponokanews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=114&cat=23&id=728719&more=
Thanks justfrank. One more; may we anticipate confirmation of that date or shall it remain nebulous from our perspective?
someone else said that the closing date has been established as August 30 (date in 8k), which is consistent with the 'before 10/1' requirement of the agreement. that puts the strike price at 42 cents. Confirmation of this would be appreciated.
Globetel probably bought the v911 so they could offer Vos Brasil in Miami area. They probably just got included in a PR about stuff unrelated to their reason for buying it. They didn't pr the equipment purchases Centerline had to make to set up. That company could cite GTE in their pr's also, but it wouldn't be a material event, would it?
serious1...looks like we may still have 'something on a line' in Russia. As I recall there is also a DECT conference scheduled for October in Moscow. 'hope we're at that one also.
Low has been calling for this funding play for some time now. Several months at least, I think.. If so, then the need for funding has been anticipated all along. The relatively small amount financed is striking. Is it because the actual need turned out to be much less than originally anticipated? Is it logical to infer from this that more money was made in the meantime than was expected, and/or less time is foreseen before other substantial sources of revenue are forecast to kick in? The negative interpretation is to say that this was all they could talk anybody into doing, but if that were the case, wouldn't the terms be more onerous, and if they needed more, they would have had to find a way to get it? But they didn't, so I think it's a good thing.
..because if so, then perhaps these investors saw something yesterday that made them sign off on it.
Question: Does this mean that the article that appeared about Sanswire yesterday correctly predicted the interest / entry of venture capitalists as documented in today's 8K?
Danielle...they changed it. look at the post this replys to and see how it was. Jim Profit pointed out that the reporter did a GTE check, got Globetel, and stuck it in wrong instead of the old GTE, who did own and sell Telus.
but of course, that's it! How come everything coming out of Canada is messed up today? ...Thanks for the explanation.
Anybody ever heard of Telus? They used to be owned by Globetel? News to me:
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=40534
Telus reorganizes under income trust
The telco giant shifts its financial structure in an effort to increase infrastructure investments. Analysts explain why this model is growing in popularity among the telephony set. Also: Where Bell went wrong
9/11/2006 4:50:00 PM
by Sarah Lysecki
Incumbent carrier Telus Corp. on Monday announced it will take its entire business into an income trust model in a bid to increase its investments in broadband network infrastructure and grow shareholder revenues.
The “Fund” will replace Telus's current two-tier structure that was left over from its previous owner, U.S.-based GlobeTel Communications Corp.
Monday's announcement follows a four-year, $600-million investment in broadband network infrastructure that Telus announced last week as part of its effort to beef up its next-generation IP network in Canada for delivery of services such as HDTV. Telus also announced on Monday a three-year, $150 million deal with cellular phone manufacturer Nokia to provide new broadband networking equipment and installation services on its network.
Telus's Darren Entwistle, president and chief executive officer, said the move to an income trust model supports the advancement off Telus's national growth strategy, which was initiated in 2000 following Telus's acquisitions of Clearnet Communications Inc. and QuebecTel.
“This creates a vehicle that enhances the robustness of our winning strategy, expedites its execution in the marketplace and increases its probability of its realization in full,” said Entwistle in a teleconference call to investors and financial analysts. “Increased tax efficiency will generate more cash flow from our superior asset mix at Telus, which will increase our ability to fund growth investments such as the announcement last Friday with Telus's four-year, broadband infrastructure build now under way.”
The initial level of cash distribution is anticipated to be between $3.90 and $4.10 per unit, up significantly from the current $1.10 per share that Telus is presently paying its unitholders. This amounts to a 255 to 273 per cent increase in cash distribution for shareholders, said Entwistle, who was joined on the conference call by Robert McFarlance, Telus's executive vice-president and chief financial officer.
Entwistle also highlighted Telus's wireless business as a significant part of the Fund for investors. Wireless currently represents 64 per cent of Telus's consolidated cash flow, according to the company.
“The potential for wireless growth coupled with its existing cash generation makes it a natural element for inclusion in the Telus income trust,” said Entwistle.
Brian Sharwood, a principal of telecommunications analyst firm SeaBoard group, said he expects to see more capital investments like the one announced on Friday before the conversion takes effect.
“They will announce a bunch of things before they give it out to the shareholders,” he said. “They want to pre-condition the investors in the income trust that we may be spending more.”
The conversion will not affect Telus's day-to-day operations and no leadership changes will be made, according to the telecom provider. The move falls under the Business Corporation Act in B.C. and is subject to approval of at least two-thirds of security holders who will vote on the decision at a special shareholder meeting in January.
Telus's decision follows an move by fellow incumbent carrier Bell Canada, which in March announced that it would form its own income trust that would combine assets of its East Coast telecommunications firm Aliant, including its wireless operations.
Roberta Fox, director of Fox Group Consulting, said income trust funds are becoming a more popular choice for businesses to raise capital to enter new markets.
“The telcos that seem to be entering new areas whether it's products or geography and they need to get capital, it seems that the income trust model gives you better access to capital,” she said.
A couple of weeks after Bell's announcement to take part of its business to an income trust model, a group representing Bell Canada's retailers, the Independent Communications Dealer Association of Canada (ICDAC), launched a $135 million lawsuit alleging that Bell forbade it from entering into its own income trust. In an interview with ITBusiness.ca Monday, Scott Phelan, president of ICDAC, said Telus's announcement gives affirmation to what his organization is trying to do.
“The fact is that Telus is not only doing that in terms of their retail operations but their whole entire company,” said Phelan. “It's a pretty spectacular move on their part.”
Phelan added moving to an income trust model would allow retailers to upgrade their stores, provide better training to staff and be better-prepared for competitive environments.
Phelan said he expects the lawsuit to move forward fairly quickly and will likely be before the Quebec Superior Court by early next year.
That is right, stratellite was spelled wrong and it said currently testing. Must have got the message and changed it. I did a copy and paste on my post so you can see the original.
Well folks, this is the first time I recall seeing an article that states stratellites are currently being tether tested and I can't help but point out that it is occuring on the first Monday after Saturday's launch of the Shuttle. Certainly confirmation of this is required, but it is what it is:
http://www.teleclick.ca/2006/09/could-floating-blimps-be-a-viable-wireless-communication-alternative...
Could Floating Blimps be a Viable Wireless Communication Alternative?
6:45 am on September 11, 2006 | Category: Wireless Technology, Cellular
Bob Jones, a former NASA manager and the current CEO of Sanswire Networks LLC, is pushing an ambitious new idea for improving wireless communication around the globe.
Instead using unsightly telecom towers and expensive space satellites, Jones has proposed the idea of “Stratellites,” or floating blimps, which would be launched into the atmosphere and used to blanket large areas with wireless voice and data service.
The idea of using airships as wireless transmissions isn’t entirely new, and was widely proposed during the dot-com bubble. The plan failed to take off at that time, but these latest plans from Sanswire Networks gives new life to this innovative idea.
The company is currently conducting tethered tests of a one-fifth scale model Strattlite, and expects to move on to remote controlled flights later in the year.
For the mean time, these tests are little more than the continuation of an old pipe dream, but they are sure to catch the eye of at least a few venture capitalists in the weeks and months to come. If the coming trials go smoothly they might just be the basis for an exciting and even revolutionary new wireless telecom technology.
ok Wing, I'll bite, which is it; beyond my ability to comprehend or nothing happening when a shuttle comes in?
I also think that the families of the shuttle crew, as well as the crew themselves, should be very grateful that you are not the base commander. Mountain out of a mole hill, indeed.
I'm not saying they are incapable, I'm saying it is profoundly bad judgement to try. They are not facing any threat here. Sure, if I have to take a risk to protect something then I will take the calculated risk of say, running a red light. If not, I'll wait for the light to change.
Cole..LOL That's really pretty good. I don't know the answer. Maybe they know it will all come out in the wash eventually, maybe it shows my theory is wrong. Let's just wait and see.
I have presented a logical argument, backed up with the fact from NASA that Edwards is an alternative landing site during the launch of a shuttle. No one has provided any similarly concrete argument to refute it. Just unfounded opinions along the lines of 'oh it's no big deal'. How would you like it if it was your tail riding on the line and somebody else is down there playing with helium balloons while you are fighting for your life? I'm not saying that I know I am right, but I feel that it is much more likely that I am right than not, imo.
It is simply beyond my ability to comprehend that whomever is running the show would make the possibly carreer destroying move of allowing any activity that has the potential of disrupting an emergency landing of the space shuttle to occur within 50 miles of the place. I don't care if there is the capability to test strats, conduct aircraft carrier landings, send in paratroops, and train the infantry all at the same time NOTHING else is going to be happening when that shuttle comes in, NOTHING.
Making an emergency landing of the space shuttle and at the same time testing groundbreaking new aerospace technology is just not the equivalent of walking and chewing gum, even for NASA.
Actually I think you missed my point. Even if they are fully capable of handling both operations at once, NASA policy should be, given the high profile nature of a shuttle mission, that nothing will be attempted concurrently with an emergency landing so as to avoid the perception, and resulting liablilities, that every precaution was not taken. This would occur even if nothing about what actually happened had anything to do with what was going on. Guilt by association is the point.
But putting that aside, what about the real possiblity that someone or something that is going on while testing the strat will screw up (Murphy's law assures this will happen) and send a loose strat floating across the airbase or something else totally unexpected and not anticipated. I know that NASA is way more conservative than that.
Peeb2005..this also seems reasonable. Maybe in this scenario Edwards would be allowed to commence other operations so long as Kennedy weather could be relied upon to remain stable for some duration of time that would allow time for suspension of Edwards operations if an emergency developed and Kennedy weather was forcasted to deteriorate. In other words, once in orbit there is time to evaluate other options that could work around activities at Edwards. Of course, come landing time, then all bets are off. This then becomes a function of the duration and flexibility of the strat testing regimen as to whether they must wait until the end of the mission. However, apparently it was determined that if strat testing started the last week of August, than there would have been time and logistics to conduct tests while the shuttle was in orbit.
Crash..they are tethered tests that require the resources and personnel of Edwards for support of the operation, in addition to some aspect of the airspace in or adjacent to the runway, I imagine. Plus NASA is supporting with meteorological services. It's the space shuttle after all. I would not think that they would allow even the appearance of being distracted from job one should something ever go wrong with the (emergency) landing sequence.
Audrey...You were right too! Thanks! This may have been the monkey wrench that messed up the best layed plans. Look for some real action this week, imo.
This confirms it. Edwards is by necessity in stand-by mode during a shuttle launch. This would have clearly delayed strat testing the last two weeks, imo.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/events/aborts/aoa.html
Abort Once Around
The AOA abort mode would be used when vehicle performance has been lost to such an extent that either it is impossible to achieve a viable orbit or not enough OMS propellant is available to accomplish the OMS-1, OMS-2 and deorbit burns. AOA would also be used in cases in which a major system problem (cabin leak, loss of cooling) made it necessary to land quickly. In this abort, one OMS burn would be made to adjust the post-MECO orbit so that a second OMS burn would cause the vehicle to deorbit and land at the AOA landing site (Northrup, Edwards Air Force Base or Kennedy Space Center.. Thus, in an AOA, the orbiter would circle the Earth once and land approximately 90 minutes after lift-off.
Several options are available to perform an AOA. Selection of the OMS-1 targets would be based on whether the abort were caused by a MECO underspeed, a system problem or an OMS/RCS performance problem. Selection of the OMS-2 targets would depend on whether a MECO underspeed existed and its magnitude. (The AOA OMS-2 burn is really a deorbit burn.) One set of targets would result in a steeper trajectory than would the other as the vehicle enters the atmosphere (entry interface); thus, this trajectory is referred to as a steep AOA. This is a more normal trajectory and stays well within the vehicle's thermal limits after it penetrates the atmosphere. It would require more delta velocity and consequently more propellant for the deorbit burn. Thus, if the MECO underspeed were severe or if both OMS helium tanks had failed, the shallow AOA targets would be used, resulting in a more shallow trajectory at entry interface and placing the vehicle closer to the skip-out boundary and its thermal limits.
The flight crew would determine that an AOA is required by Mission Control Center call and by checking the OMS-1 target solution against the OMS targeting cue card. Depending on the kind of AOA required, the crew would load the required OMS-1 targets and execute the burn. They would then position the software mode to OPS 3 and load the appropriate OMS-2 (deorbit) targets. After the burn is executed, the flight crew would fly to a landing at the preplanned site, much as they would for a nominal entry.
Hey, just realized something. The shuttle was supposed to take off on Sunday, August 27 but did not go until today. Isn't Edwards on standby during a launch in case something bad happens? If, as the CNBC report stated, there were testing plans for the last week of August, then they may have been postponed due to shuttle delays. Delays beget delays and now here we may be with the first chance in weeks to start a testing regimen that could not have been interupted by and of course could not have interfered with an aborted shuttle flight. That would also possibly explain the pulling the CNBC report from the web sites for all this time. Can anyone confirm that Edwards is in standby mode during a shuttle launch?