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.
It is meaningless without context (full information). You see it every day in politics, LOL.
I would love to post examples from my own line of work...but I can't.
That's my 2 cents...gotta run.
I hear you - I read it...it's easy to scratch at on the surface....but I'm sensing a hard core business conditional behind K's comments that isn't explicit from this series of email exchanges.
Personally, when it comes to money - I go voice.
Again - I'm not saying it isn't accurate, but I am hesitant to draw conclusions from a partial set of "confidential" emails....alot of context is missing.
I don't see how anyone can draw a conclusion one way or the other. Was the German intiative delivering results?
Was mangagement initially concerned, but then dismayed by poor performance or wasteful behavior on the German end? I don't know - can't tell from the string of emails.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, however, I would like to see some proof of performance and/or an audit of the German operation before I buy into the storyline.
There might be more there than meets the eye.
Jet,
Wanted you to know I support your questions and didn't find anything inflammatory with your posts. Good questions, IMO.
Respectfully,
Sky
I'm not going to lose sleep if the government decides to throw a few million $$ at GTEM.
If GTEM wins a contract, it's because it satisfies DoD acquisition criteria and presents the best business case.
If GTEM is as incompetent as you want everyone to believe, then I guess the taxpayers needn't be concerned, right?
Cole, Cole, Cole....
You are very naive to think the military doesn't waste alot of $$ with companies far more obscure, and believe it or not, smaller than GTEM. The list is too long.
Apparently you refuse to acknowledge the favorable Coalition Warrior review of HOTZONE. It is what it is....get over it.
So Sam,
Do you want GTEM to be successful or not?
I for one would like to know what you think GTEM should do to put the past behind them and move forward. Can you offer a viable way-ahead?
All ears.....
Sky
I agree.
Terrific! Isn't that what Mide has been encouraging you to do all along?
Well said, Crash.
On one hand, I side with Sam - I want the company to release meaningful, timely information, as well as an acute expectation for financials.
But at the same time, the timing and intensity of Sam's comments make me question his motives. We didn't hear boo from him the last several weeks (when it looked like GTEM was done for)....
Now that I think about it, he does sound alot like Joe - all accusation and no solutions.
Great find. My guess is it's a small amount merely for life support of HAA CONOPS and capability development. If you recall, the R&D funded previously was in the hundred millions (~$300M total if I recall correctly -- it's been a while).
Regardless of likelihood and/or enforceability, it is up and providing real-time evidence for the plaintiffs, who might be copying it for backup as Cole suggests.
Fact remains - it can't be shut down until the judge says so.
Not soon.
Sky
HAA was cancelled. Doesn't mean they're not still developing - but I assess it as unlikley. The more promising technology for LMT appears to be the hybrid heavy lift transport (re Skunkworkds P791).
"with the right software...
it only takes a couple of minutes to make a complete and accurate copy of a website that would satisfy any court from an evidentiary standpoint..."
I find that hard to believe, since a copy can be manipulated. Is the software somehow certified, and does a certified third-party have to make the copy?
I tend to agree that the company should pursue shutting it down, but the lawyers may have advised them otherwise. Legally, it may be much easier said than done.
"There's no loyalty between thieves."
The old adage still rings true.
Has anyone seen a Skysat?
It's hard to ascertain the exact orientation of the test model to the airstream, but I am skeptical of that demo because it does not simulate a normal flight regime. It is tethered, and therefore constrains the vehicle in an orientation to the prevailing windstream that an actual vehicle may not be able to obtain and/or maintain.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but from that little bit I can see, the conclusions regarding stability might be reasonably challenged.
I don't recall saying that putting a lighter than air craft at 65kft was impossible...I just don't thinks it's possible to elevate 1500lbs to that altitude w/180,000 ft3 of anything, even vacuum.
Is it impossible to float a stone on water? Most people would say yes...but then pumice floats...why...because it is less dense that the volume it displaces.
Your specs do not appear to satisfy Archimedes prinicple. I would be delighted to be proven wrong - and become your champion.
Understood...which is why I originally considered the SANS a non-flying mid-scale proof of concept article - to galvanize investor interest and $$ on the HAA vision.
Then....partner/team with an airship company, preferably as subs under a major aerospace company acting as prime for a military contract.
In reality - they never had to "design" a ship at all....they merely had to sell the idea and integrate wireless capability....
I bridge too far now, I suppose.
Any medium, heated ot otherwise, still weighs more than a vacuum (ideal). If Vern was not referring to the displacement volume of the lighter than air medium (ie, it's something less than 180000) then it's even more of a stretch.
His claim seems to defy the law of physics, IMO, and validates what I have heard from others.
I can assure you, most ideas regarding hyd/helium mix, heated medium, vacuum tanks, and other hybrid conventions have been considered over the years. If Vern's tech is so original and capable, he would have had it patented (and possibly be a rich man by now).
Thanks for you comment - it's my honor to serve you. I fly rotary-wing ISR/multi-mission (sorry, but that's as specific as I can get).
I think you should ask Vern his credentials - after all, I'm not the one that sold the company on a flawed design from the get go.
I have Masters in Elec Eng/Digital Architecture and 15+ yrs military flying experience. I don't profess to have any aero design experience, but it isn't that hard to figure out that 180000 cubic feet of air at 65k cannot statically buoy 1550 lbs (even if displaced by a weightless container able to withstand a perfect vacuum).
I don't blame Vern, though. I blame those that hired him. They should have hired people/companies that design airships for a living, not a hobby.
Vern,
You're not telling the whole story, plus I recommend that you buy a new calculator - or stick to building only models.
Vern,
You never explained to the board why SANS I had to be lengthened 100 feet.
I know the answer, and have been waiting for you to come clean.
Post #81059 refers.
An airship demo orchestrated thru ARINC in 2004:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/10/mil-041005-arnews01.htm
I've dropped synch. Can somone point me to the Joe M. letter(s)?
Thanks. Sky.
LTA operational support cost is 30-50% of fixed-wing.
Initial procurement for fixed-wing is expensive, but it pales in comaprison to O/S cost over 30 years (the part that fixed wing advocates don't like to talk about).
What does he need to prove, Crash?
NOBODY, not even the Pentagon, can predict how material solution(s) to capability requirements may change over time. JCIDS keeps the door open to technology opportunities - esp ones that may provide the same or better capability for less money.
Nil is perfectly justified in his comments/speculation. Unfortunately, the burden of proof for DoD airship/LTA viability still rests with folks like us...because the aviation communities (particularly mainstream Navy) can't stand the notion patrol airships (because they see it as a threat platforms they are emotionally tied to).
I believe a privatized surveillance company could be developed w/LTA technology, and can contract to DoD/DHS for far less than what equivalent capability costs today. When/if this happens, military aviation communities will experience huge budget cuts (and they will be surprised!). DoD will do an about face, and we will suddenly hear them praising virtues of LTA (in hopes of recouping some money for a progam of their own -- (in a last ditch effort to keep provide a career path for aviators belonging to legacy communities).
It's interesting becasue DoD has historically considered LTA when ther budget was relatively robust, but cast it aside as soon as budget cuts ensued (as today). Rather illogical - but easily explained by DoD culture and high-stakes Beltway lobbying.
Thats my 2 cents, anyway. Sorry for the rambling. Sky.
I agree that our troops deserve the best capability. The reality is, however, that it costs money to run the military, and expensive appetites are actually depriving our troops of needed capability. Do you know how much a F-22 costs? Do you kow how much we're spending just in R&D on JSF? Do you know how much it costs to operate a Global Hawk for just one hour?
Yes, Sanswire has not achieved strat capability - but it's envisioned capability (primarily large sensor loads, persistence measured in days, and extreme dwell/stare ability) would compliment DoD capability needs in ways that fixed wing air breathers simply cannot. We wouldn't be getting our butts kicked by IEDs and car bombs if we had true 24/7 surveillance capability over Baghdad. Wouldn't it be nice to rewind the tape and trace back to the garages building them?
Why aren't we able to do that now? I believe it's because we don't fly our most capable UAVs as much as we would like - for 3 reasons: 1) Not enough assets, 2) Maintenance/Wear & tear, 3) Affordability
A Global Hawk costs ~$25k/hr to operate. Let's assume that we have the assets to maintain a 24/7 rotation over an area of particular interest for 30 days...that cost equates to ~$18 Million - just for a month.
I hear the "responsiveness" argument all the time...from companies desperately clinging to lucrative UAV contracts -- and they keep feeding the same speak to DoD.
You don't need responsiveness if you're already there.
Yes,
But the capability this article speaks of, while very capable indeed, is very expensive to procure and operate over its lifetime...and will never be able to compete w/LTA from a fuel efficiency standpoint (cost and operational capability implications).
Sky
Sam, Warp is not implying that GTEM/NMC really has 10k+ customers as forecasted - he merely reported where we "should" be.
Warp clearly stated where he obtained the data and plotted it. Simple.
He further added that when/if we learn how many NMC subscribers there really are, then we'll have a visual plot of how far behind (or ahead) GTEM/NMC really is.
Nil - I commend you for unbiased interpretation of PR's, i.e., the term "platform air vehicle" is intentionally non-specific. Unfortunately, the Navy already "knows" what they want this widget to be -- a F-14 sized stealth UAV that can launch and recover from carriers. Hence the big R & D installment.
Thanks for the intro, RV.
I too, cling to the vision of stratellite capability. While disappointed by the methods of previous leadership, I am hopeful that current mid-alititude demonstrations/tests will bolster investor confidence and provide a risk-managed approach toward true strat-based networking.
Regardless of the banter across this board, there is no clear leader in stratellite capability. The entity that accomplishes it first will certainly be credited in aerospace history, and if properly managed, will make its investors very happy, indeed.
Despite DoD's interest in the strat networking capability, it is burdened with cost-of-war bills and recapitalization programs, and cannot justify investment in this high-risk (and potentially high-return) technology. I came to the conclusion long ago that private industry would have to lead development.
This is a tough nut for any company to crack. Therefore, I would really like to see the incredible talent of the individual posters on this board focused on offering our company potential solutions through research and respectful debate (as opposed to trying to prove who's right and wrong).
Thanks again for speaking up - I appreciated your honest comments.
Sky
I know of nothing that can station keep for 8-10 days, particularly the combat Skysat the Air Force Battle Lab experimented with a few years ago - It was a throw away balloon system that, I suppose, could remain aloft 8-10 days, but not maintain station over a particular zip code.
defenseindustrydaily.com/combat-skysat-cheap-nearspace-communications-relay-at-jefx-06-02210/
Please point me to the specs for the Skysat system Sanswire is involved with. I haven't been able to ascertain whether or not it is a continuation of the original DoD initiative. Nobody replied last time I asked (when Skysat news first hit the GTEM board).
Thanks,
Sky
Vern,
Can you tell me when and under what circumstances Sanswire acknowledged that the original design was ~100' too short and needed to be lengthened? I think I asked once before and cannot recall getting an answer.
I first heard mention of the volume issue through the grapevine, but I seem to recall a hint of it in a letter to the shareholders a couple/few years ago. Can anyone help me out?
Sky
Thanks Crash.
I'm not worried as much about obstruction clearance. My comment refers to temperature, humidity, and density gradients that are far more pronounced vertically than horizontially, and can influence propogation paths of radio signals.
For example, I have experienced evaporative ducts in certain regions of the world that were incredible at containing radio/radar signals and dumping them off well over the horizon (and kept them from going up/down within a few miles of the aircraft.
I'm hopeful that this area of Mexico provides an atmospheric environment conducive to our needs.
Was a great observation. Hopefully vertical transmission paths won't be too greatly affected by atmospherics.
Interesting point, but might also be the line-of-sight distance between tranceivers and/or optimal spacing based upon terrain elevations.
Thanks Nerd. I stand corrected.
More info on power transmission for the readers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
High tension wires carry AC. You can't carry useful energy very far on DC - which is why all our homes are AC (can step up/step down via transformers for min line-loss).
I suppose an AC convention could be used on a tether - but the tether itself is very heavy.
The size increase neccessary to carry just a tether to 100kft is tremendous - better off carrying a small nuclear power device (like satellites do) or beaming up focused microwave energy from the ground.
IMO, regardless of what they may claim, I find it hard to believe the Russians were successful with a 100kft tethered aerostat that offered any meaningful capability. If they had, they'd be using it now - and kicking Sanswire's butt.
That's news to me Sirius,
as I haven't checked the board in a long while (just moved back to DC).
Can you give me a vector to statements regarding "Sanswire airships have been accepted into the Trident trials and Sanswire is working with third parties to include radar sensors on their airships for the trials?"
Thanks. Sky.