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.
Ragnar
Do you think there's a need for Sanswire technology in Iceland?
"Mr. Jones reported that after detailed aerodynamic and structural analysis, the team lengthened Sanswire One's frame to 188 feet from the original design of 90 feet. Eventually, the commercial airships, which were originally designed to be 245 feet, will range from 450 feet to 800 feet depending on payload requirements. Mr. Jones continued, "In three weeks, we corrected the original design and built almost 100 additional feet of the space frame. We also moved from a Dacron covering to a space age Tedlar covering, developed a ground station communications package, and made advances in composite materials and in method of lifting gases."
THAT would have done it! If this statement were true (note 3 week period) and Huff would have reported it up front, he would have had his out and the landing would have been a lot softer.
mastaflash
That doesn't surprise me. Isn't SNWR sorta joined at the hip with GTEL? If GTEL succeeds with a commercial ship, SNWR shareholders get GTEL stock....right? Today GTEL stock tanks, ergo........
GoFetch
Now THAT'S what I call a post.
It brings to mind:
"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs....................Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!"
There's a whole lot more in the area of the dots. You Rudyard Kipling fans know what I mean.
Yardbird
"They assumed that if they showed it in a unfinished stage of comstruction investiors would actually LISTEN to their understandable explanation."
What is the explanation. Have you heard it yet? If so, please direct me to it. Did you see it in a report from a member of this or any other board?
Anybody?
Rocky
You're right. Huff made a biiiiig boo-boo but accusing him of lying is ridiculous. Why set himself up for all the flack that was certain to come?
He learned a lesson, I'm sure. I suspect he'll think twice before tackling the timeline again. :>)
LuckyOne
There was another option. He could have warned AND gone through with the demo. Would it have made a difference? I dunno! It might have cushioned the blow.
I goofed on my post. I meant to say 35 miles from Palmdale to Edwards not Norton to Edwards.
BTW, is Norton really about 350 miles from Palmdale?
I know, it's beginning to sound like an Abbott and Costello routine. :>)
LuckyOne
I was typing my last post while you were posting yours. :>)
So, indeed, a final ground move is possible. When I did my Mapquest thing, I used Mojave in place of Edwards. Do you know if that 35 mile figure is close to the actual distance from the Norton facility to Edwards?
Thanks for the additional info.
Testsite
Thanks. Makes sense.
Mapquest says Palmdale to Mojave about is 35 miles. So near yet so far. Don't count out a ground move from Palmdale to Edwards, yet. It could still happen after all the construction and ground testing is completed. It might be worth it rather than dealing with the FAA.
Another thought. You'd think they would much prefer to assemble at Edwards. That would remove the biggest regulatory hurdle to the launch....the FAA. There must have been something really prohibitive in the prospective move to Edwards.
Hopefully, GTEL will explain the rationale in the next PR.
william rich
Maybe they couldn't get a construction site at Edwards. Maybe, if they could, the cost would be prohibitive considering the length of time it might take to finish the construction and all ground testing. The Military might be interested but be unwilling to pass out any freebies.
Do you know the distance from Norton to Palmdale? Is it closer to Norton than Edwards?
losabill
Great job on the coverage!
Rocky
Your response was a bit too cryptic for me. If you're telling me to email someone/something at that address, I'll pass, thank you. I'm careful about putting my email address out there when I don't know where it's going.
If the post was deleted, just tell me why. I'm a big boy....I can take it. :>)
No doubt about it. There are more shoes ready to drop on this one.
BTW, was my first post today, deleted?
Uriah
Thanks but that was obvious. Beyond that......?
Makes you wonder
what was retained. Apparently only the shell. Can't be the name....even that's going to be changed.
SAM
Obviously the engineers are comfortable with the power requirements at any altitude, otherwise there'd no test flight.:>)
I'm going to have to think about your explanation. I'm not quite ready to buy it.
I'm a golfer. At sea level, my drive carries X yards. At 6000 feet elevation, my drive carries X + 10%X to 12%X yards. The force generated by my swing is the same at either elevation. What accounts for the difference? If you use the same iron for your approach shot at elevation as you do at sea level, you'd better make an early trip to the ATM because you're gonna be buying the drinks.
It would appear to me that the more "rarified" the air is, the less force you need to obtain the same results. What you appear to be saying is that, the higher the ship goes (all other things being equal), the more power it needs to navigate the same distance. Also, even though the "props" won't operate as efficiently at 65000ft, the resistance to the Stratellite's movement is also diminished, significantly. Maybe it's a wash.
Remember, after the summit, there were questions about the control of the ship at the lower altitudes, not at operational altitude. GTEL said that was proprietary information.
Thanks for your response. I'll think about it for a while.
"Staion-keeping" at 65,000 feet altitude is considered difficult for an airship, due to it's slow speed and limited maneuverability, especially when confronting high-velocity jet stream winds on its ascent and descent. GlobeTel officials beleive they have developed a solution to this problem, but it is proprietary information which to my knowledge they have not made public."
If the above was contained in the alleged e-mail received from Nasa, I now understand why GTEL would not answer my request for info. I sent it 3 times. Even thought a little humor might help. See below.
"Gentlemen:
My friends and I are GlobeTel investors. In discussing the Stratellite, we came away with an unanswered question. Perhaps you can help us.
Although the concept of maintaining a Stratellite in a stable position at operational altitude is understandable even to the lay person, the question of control at the lower altitudes appears to present different problems. During the time it takes to attain operational altitude, isn't the craft going to be subject to the lower altitude winds which would cause it to drift a considerable distance from the launch and recovery sites? While this might be easily correctable at altitude, wouldn't the problem be more acute during the process of recovery?
In essence, are the motors essentially powerful enough to control the drift at lower altitudes during both the launch and presumably, the recovery?
Your reply is important to us as it will determine which one of us pays for our next lunch date."
Someone on this board suggested that I send the e-mail rather than call the company. I guess I wasn't going to get any answers either way. :>)
JAMES E
At the expense of appearing cynical, your broker might be more interested in a prospective commission than your welfare. Be careful.
SEBASS
I'm not making light of your concern about strattelite "crashes" but the first line of your post pretty much says it all.
There are literally thousands of airplane flights every day. We accept that risk. Why not strattelites...the number of which will be an insignificant fraction of the number of airplanes flights? They don't burn up before they hit the ground, either. :>)
rhlytle...agentjon...DOGFACE
Thanks for your sugestions.
DOGFACE
Scottrade is OK as long as you're not talking stock prices under $1.00 and a whole lot of shares. The premium for a buy/sell of these shares is one half of 1 percent.
Example: if you buy/sell 100K shares of a stock a $1.00 or more/share, the commission is $7. If the share price was 99 cents, the commission is $502. Big difference, eh? It's a rip off. I guess they figure people who buy BB stocks are dumb. :>)
Currently many of my stocks, including GTEL, are with Scottrade, but I'm going to open an Ameritrade account solely for my GTEL holdings if what I heard is true about their charging a flat commission for unlimited quantities.
Of course, it might not be necessary if GTEL takes off and hits the $1.00 mark before I get the chance. :>)
Sorry fashionman
I must be really dense tonight. Can you tell me specifically how to download the 2/10/05 program which mentions GTEL? The links are for different things, including paying for archival info. What am I missing?
fashionman
I'm confused. You posted a number of links. which one(s) relates to a discussion of GTEL? Also, is this a "pay" service?
Speaking of "drift", on the advice of someone on this board, rather than calling the company about drift problems at lower altitudes during launch and recovery, I e-mailed them.
That was 2 days ago. I'll wait a couple of more days then repeat my request for info. Then I'll call. :>)
PeaceDog
It's unlikely Lockheed would be "outlobbyed" by the likes of GTEL. They're so entrenched in the defense contract world. If GTEL does get a contract with the Defense Dept., it's unlikely to be at the expense of Lockheed.
Than again, occasionally, the little dog eats the big dog. :)
I called the company just now trying to get an answer to my question about handling the "drift" of the Strat at low altitudes.
The phones are ringing off the hook and it was impossible to carry on a running conversation with a woman named Maria. She said she was the only one there. Everyone else is off somewhere making us millionaires. :>) I did ask her if she could shed some light on my question. She couldn't, except to say the motors "should be able to handle the drift". OK, armed with that and a buck, I can buy a candy bar.....maybe. :>)
According to her, Mr. Huff will be in tomorrow. I'll try then.
Thanks Bill
I'm sure they had it resolved before it came off the drawing board. We'll eventually find out.
Right now, it's as good a guess as any. :)
Thanks Rocky
I've seen that before . It's interesting but it doesn't address the winds on the way up or down. Maybe a message to the company will give us the answer.
Rocky
I understand the concept of the minimal winds @ 65K feet but I'm confused about solution to the problem of significantly higher winds as the craft passes through the lower altitude winds. What's going to keep the craft in the the same relative position as the launch site? I assumed the motors are designed for the minimal winds at operational altitude. I envision this thing taking hours to attain the proper altitude. Even in a a 15MPH wind, it'll be 45 miles away from the launch site in 3 hours. Of couse, at this point, I'm just guessing .
It's one thing to reposition it after it reaches altitude but, when they bring it down, are those motors going to be sufficiently powerful to overcome the drift at the lower levels and guide it to a controlled landing zone?
What am I missing?