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.
That's pretty cool. It's algorithm must be close to the one I posted, but outputs in statue miles (5280 ft/mile vs nautical 6000ft/mile)... plus mine was just to the horizon. This is great for calulating LOS between two towers/masts. Thanks for the link!
Sky
Line of sight comm range in nautical miles = 1.23 x the squareroot of the altitude.
Therefore, 10,000 ft corresponds to 123nm LOS (radius).
65k = 313nm.
I've been wondering that too. The SkySat, as corroborated by Crash (below), is/was a relatively small, inexpensive free floating balloon with a lightweight transceiver package designed to permit troops in urban environments and mountainous regions to communicate (where line-of-sight is impossible). I think the Air Force Battle Lab that developed it was just shut down (due to budget constraints) so I don't know if there is a still a progam or any vestage thereof. The PR mentions SkySat as SANSII based, so I am led to believe it is not the same product, unless there's more to it than any of us mortals are allowed to know at this point. I don't know if there is any copyright protection on the name SkySat. There's a number of them. A couple of links to the Air Force Combat SkySat:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2005/0705near.asp
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/combat-skysat-cheap-nearspace-communications-relay-at-je...
Hello, Sky.
If you don't already know this - SkySat is a fully funded transmitter platform program by the USAF.
It's a military program.
Whether or not it's directly linked? Remains to be seen.
Could it be possible that certain government organizations need to be able to covertly monitor movement in mountainous regions with improved sensors and extended duration?
With excess helium vented off, how is positive buoyancy maintained when the ship returns to lower altitudes?
Concur. I want Globetel to remain zip-lip and not get down to the this yoyo's level. I do, however, expect them to pay Sands ASAP, as obligated by court direction.
I concur w/all logic of not fighting w/lawers up to the point of judge's decision. I would have paid Sands on the 30th day of the stay if his business practices were genuinely slimey, but not paying by the 31st day was a tactical mistake IMO. I hope the K-men rip someone a new one for that.
BTW - I didn't see any mention of "fraud" on the LA court website. Did I miss something?
Sky
I think you guys may be confusing SAR and the X-band (gigantic radar) intended for ISIS.
The advantage of SAR is that it is small and can be installed on fixed wing/rotary wing aircraft. Ideal since SAR requires linear motion in order to function.
I believe the X-band radar being considered for ISIS will be considered "large aperture," capable of generating very narrow beams. A SAR application will not work well because the ship will be stationary (for all practical purposes).
The military has always wanted large aperature radar, but hasn't been able to develop air-based capability (other than R&D) due to technological shortcomings and overall affordability. ISIS may ulimately deliver that capability.
See link below for more discussion re airship and large aperture radar....
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:X8_o_tZW5IgJ:www.hacinc.us/CruiseMissileDefenseWhitePaper.pdf+s....
That would then be considered a tethered balloon or aerostat.
The capability you speak to does have potential. It already exists (military), so Globetel would be competing w/companies with decades' head start. Check out Army JLENS/RAID.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=jlens
The fact that telcom companies haven't already implemented tells me the business case fails for some reason - hard to imagine they haven't already considered it. There may be some bad assumptions (as often there are with helium based capabilities). In any case, I'd rather see Globetel press with true "Strat" capability, or cut it's losses trying to self-develop overhead presence and partner with a company with expertise in commercial LTA applications/technologies.
Note that both are much slower than broadband (using dial-up as only comparison), and induce latency....acceptable if you're in remote locations, but certainly not competitive with land line broadband/fiber performance and cost.
Stratellite remains the holy grail as it presents affordable potential for satellite-like coverage with broadband speed and minimal latency.
Interesting - I didn't know anyone was offering 2-way satellite internet service (I remember the downlink service that required a phone line uplink).
You're spot on. Great comments.
The military aviation community has been the enemy of airships - pilots consider them grotesque flying machines.
"The U.S. military plan to test an Internet router in space, in a project that could also benefit civilian broadband satellite communications."
Don't hold your breath, risk, these kind of military endeavors slip schedule and/or get canx'd all the time. Even if it executes as planned, you are naive to think that commercial industry will be ready to jump on the bandwagon after only three years of military experimentation...and that is predicated on the military sharing what it learns.
Generally speaking, the military may choose to finance exotic systems that have no reasonable hope of survival in the free economy, purely for the tactical capability they provide.
It is common to see the military spin "potential civilian benefits" in order to influence Congress and ultimately get financing for something it wants.
I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of those success stories (internet)...but there are billions of $$ spent on a LOT more R&D endeavors that never spawn a thing, military or civilian.
Not so fast, Risk.
1. This is test.
2. It will be years away (~ decade or more) before you'll see commercial use, if it gets that far.
3. Satellites are "astronomically" expensive. Business case is risky - re Iridium.
http://www.gihyo.co.jp/magazine/SD/pacific/SD_9912.html
You're right! I forgot all about that - even I'm still new to Wifi!! Thanks.
Precisely. I get a kick out of people who forget that.
Reminds me of the kid that told me to send him an e-mail when I called to report that I my ISP wasn't connecting to the network...and then went on to ask if I had checked their website for troubleshooting!!! He never did get it.
My impression is that many Americans do not have an appreciation for conditions outside the US, or fully grasp how "primitive" other countries are by comparison.
Internet solicitation and signup is passive. You have to have access and to know the address to view a particular webpage/site. That means potential customers have to be contacted through other means/media, e.g., storefront (popular in Mexico/Latin America), newspapers, fliers, TV and radio. You still see advertisements on TV (Comcast, People PC, Vonage...), right?
How many of you recall getting your first internet service in the late 80's - early 90's in the "Wild West" days of internet startups with dial-up, 14k baud rates and 8 MHZ computers! You certainly didn't get service by using someone else's computer and signing up via interent, especially if you were the only guy in neighborhood to even have a computer.
Try to imagine what it must be like introducing internet in areas where people probably don't have reliable phone or cable service and little to zero exposure to comupters/internet....this is something totally new that will require sales methods unique to their situational environment.
Of course, as kids start to gain access, signup via computer should gain momentum, provided there is a website dedicated for that purpose in the future. For the time being, I'll bet contact is being made through kiosks/storefront/roadsigns/print in market/commercialized areas.
Yeah, I've noted that, too.
I've become less worried about Globetel after realizing SEC investigations occur all the time - and that no one is exempt.
"This was a well conceived and manipulated scheme to destroy shareholder value at the expense of the shareholders."
By who - Huff, who is a shareholder? Or do you mean the Russians?
Hard for me to imagine anyone intentionally destroying their own fortune, regardless of how they became vested.
I attribute it to naivete.
Thanks, Sam!
From the little bit of info we have, it appears he's suing over his employment contract with Globetel. Is there perhaps a reason why Globetel let him go? Was he possibly part of Globetel's performance problem?
I honestly don't know his history, but on the surface it sounds like it may be a case of, "I'm gonna sue because I got fired."
Don't bother yelling at me, Sam, I have a wife for that...but do clue me in if you feel it necessary.
Almost evereyone I know in Central Florida uses pre-pay calling plans.
That's pretty funny!
Agreed, except for speculative interest gone...maybe from disappointed investors, who, like Sanswire, didn't have an appreciation for what this kind of project really means in terms of technical and developmental risk. I don't think that's necessarily anyone's fault - it's the nature of transformational technology.
From all I've seen, Sanswire is still in the hunt, and I think there are plenty of potential investors ready to lay their money down if Sanswire is able to pull off a sucessful (convincing) demo (DoD included).
Your final comment is dead on - Globetel is gonna have to make some money. Let's hope they do!
The concept exists - a strat does not.
Major aerospace oversells UAVs all the time with capability that exists only on paper. To say it's just a concept that does not yet exist would, IMO, convey an apprarent lack of confidence and turn potential investors off on the spot.
The intent is to spark the imagination and therefore speculative interest of investors (which SANS I and II do). It's up to the investor to determine if the company is overstating their product, achievements, and/or future potential.
I credit Sanswire for being one of few HAA companies to build SOMETHING that credibly depicts a concept....something far beyond what a piece of paper or ppt presentation can do. History is full of example companies that made historic breakthroughs with patched together prototypes, not to mention billions R&D dollars expended on ideas communicated via artists' conceptions.
I don't where it was in the sequence of events, but I recall that S1 had to be lengthened ~100' (due to design error, I think). Does anyone know if that was a factor?
Don't get your hopes up, Nil.
I believe Navy-UCAS is intended to fulfill SEAD missions, hence emphasis on LO. Navy wants this to operate fom aircraft carriers, and probably doesn't want to consider other conops (that might include airships).
It's hard for me to imagine LO vehicles operating from carriers since dings/scratches are something they cannot tolerate.
This program has had a lot of ups and downs the past few years. Since it will be costly - Congress will prob keep enough R&D in the budget to feed their constuencies, but not enough to fund production. We'll see.
Maybe Globetel and the audit firm couldn't agree on a contract, i.e., Globetel, in conserve resources mode, is seeking an auditor on the cheap. Perhaps the money GTEM was offering simply wasn't worth the headache to an upscale Miami firm that can afford to be selective.
Yeah - I don't know of any crossover between these two companies. Appears to me that a techsphere pic was photoshopped with a Sanswire logo, as suggested earlier. In any case, I think it's safe to say the ship itself is not a Sanswire product.
http://www.techsphere.us/default.aspx
http://www.ccmopportunitybase.com/detailednews.asp?intReleaseID=12627&n=-1
http://www.ccmopportunitybase.com/detailednews.asp?intReleaseID=12651&n=-1
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Techsphere_Structures_Licensing_Agreement_With_Global_Skyship_Indust...
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Cyber_Aerospace_Purchases_AeroSphere_Airship_From_Techsphere.html
I'm fairly certain it is a Techsphere product, not Sanswire.
I tend to agree.
My sense is that the Colonel has developed the situational awareness necessary to take charge - and now he is.
Nice article. Thanks Nil.
Understood. Maybe someone can plug the numbers later to figure what the 2 degrees equates to at 65k. We might be surprised.
We should consider this, too - the beam is narrow, but is it fixed? I use very narrow beam datalink between moving platforms. The antennaes at both ends steer to maintain link.
Great points - and they are universal to ALL aircraft.
So do you see how airships are sometimes ruled out as possibilities due to lack of understanding?
Over time, you too will recognize the themes - and beat your head against the wall trying to change people's paradigms. Convincing them about the inherent virtues of LTA is only half of the problem. The second half is the overall Concept of Operations and supporting Analysis of Alternatives. IMO, this is why DoD often fails with LTA pitches. They are good at stating what they want, but not so good with the analysis to support it.
Even with a good conops - it is still a tough nut to crack, esp since LTA potentially challenges other programs whose resources may get taken away if airships gain support.
With regard to military apps, LTA has historically had to defend itself due to common misperceptions. The folks that were quoted in the article are obviously new to the subject, and made classic blunders that will be used against them as convenient (albeit weak) justification for cancelling at budget endgame. I fear they unwittingly set themselves up for failure in the Pentagon, as many, many airship proposals already have.
You will find that those who are quick to speak to airships as big slow moving targets are the same ones who fail to recognize and/or properly charaterize the shortcomings and vulnerabilities of current platforms.
Much of the surveillance needs are in a benign environment, so LTA could serve us well in that role and avoid alot of procurement an operational support cost. That doesn't mean everything else should go away, it means we can extends the life of other, perhaps more tactical surveillance aircraft (use them when we need them, but not for everday common surveillance).
Thanks, Nerd.
IMO, to station keep means to maintain position in 3-D volume, whose limits are prescribed by system performance requirements (ultimately the customer). For instance, the strat at 65k may be able to vary position by 10-100 miles and several thousand feet before customers are effected. I said MAY - system engineers will determine the actual numbers.
I think we would agree that we wouldn't the company to pay/engineer for more capability than is actually required.
Parking in the wind is relatively easy, and with GPS, knowing where you are, and where you need to be is simple. Getting there and dealing with winds presents significant power/drive/controllability engineering challenges.
There's a lot of classic amature inaccuracies in the quotes. The fact is, history attests that airships are very resiliant (if filled with inert gas). They can absorb a vast amount gunfire and continue to remain airborne/operate. From the air vehicle perspective, they are far more survivable than any heavier than air (fixed/rotary wing).
As far as being a BIG radar target - I would have to refer to the experts on that. I submit that the envelope should be near invisible to radar. I would also submit that commercial airliners and military logistics aircraft and helos are all easy targets for IR SAMS. Airships use different engines than most military aircraft (gas turbine) so the color IR missiles look for may not be there...but I don't know for sure. Conciveably, an airship could arrive at a point upwind of the area of interest and turn it engines off to drift with the wind. I've often thought this would be particularly effective over Iraq so we could catch the bad guys in the act with snipers.
For the surveillance missions being considered, you have to ask, is it more or less vulnerable than current vehicles? Even if it proves to be more vulnerable for one reason or another, the risk might be acceptable since airships are so cheap to procure and operate relative to all other programs.
It's a matter of partial pressure, not oxygen content. Altitude/elevation is the same as far as an barometric altimeter is concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(medical)
I said approx 10kft as indicated by the ~
Yes, many people can go a few thousnad feet higher, but not everyone. That is the reason US Navy helo pilots are prohibited from flying over 10k, even though the helicopter can go higher.
The point was, however, that taking a manned airship higher than 10k implies use of supplemental oxygen. It was one of many reasons airships haven't exploited that regime, yet.
An unmanned ship solves human habitability problems, but introduces recovery challenges (not trivial).
No - I really didn't mean that an airship has operated at 45k. I believe ~20k is the record.
Reasons we've stayed out of the 20-45k regime with airships:
A. Jetstream with windspeeds capable of 200kts+.
B. Requires much larger volume than lower altitudes (thinner air)
C. Human beings in unpressurized cabins have to go on oxygen above ~10k - otherwise they will suffer hypoxia.
D. Low cost balloons have allowed us to reach the stratosphere.
A "strat" is revolutionary because it is the first attempt to put a controllable lighter than air vehicle above the strata that gives us problems due to wind. That means alot of volume and cutting edge power development/management and skin materials.
It is easy to believe that a demonstration at 45k is a logical stepping stone to 65k, but those pitching that are understating the complexity. The original stratellite/HAA concept was to avoid 20-45k strata entirely - a truly transformational leap.
Before I answer - would you please share your definition of station keeping. It appears to be different than mine.