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 wonder if this is related to our last PR?
http://www.gtc-usa.com/satellite-blog/
be_real, there are times when I think someone should be hitting me on the head for still being here, but just maybe, this is our year.
I don't know what process the DOD goes through when deciding on whether to give the thumbs up on a product like ours. Why N2S2 is the proposed testing area vs. Kennedy Space Center or some airstrip in MD? Could it be the combination of terrain, heat, proximity to old nuclear material? I speculate that there is a deliberate reason as to why we are at N2S2 and not somewhere else.
If I were to fork out money for the Argus and if it were going to be used to assist/protect troops or civilians, I would want to test the heck out of it rather than just see it fly in circles a few times before sending it off on a mission. What kind of consumables does it need, fuel, envelopes, rivets, motor parts, etc. What sort of mileage can you get out of it? Operating procedures? Retrieval options? What happens when you shoot at it? How do you fold the darn thing to get it back in the box?
The list probably goes on an on, and is well beyond my level of comprehesion. When I think of the Argus in these terms, I become more patient with a wait and see mindset. Definitely not easy to do after all these years.
That statement of "several months" is pretty telling...I think.
Meaning this bird has a ways to go in terms of exposing it to whatever real world parameters they are trying to test. There must be potential here otherwise why bother. Someone has not seen enough to put in an order but they remain committed to doing enough due diligence with the Argus to see what it can do.
While the company has chosen to keep the specs and details under wraps for now, the SHM falls within the "several month" timeframe so you can bet that the subject will come up in July.
I looked back at the first S-1 and it has .045 listed so it's no wonder our SP sits where it does.
So since I am ignorant on the details with all the fancy mumbo jumbo wording...what does this amount to?
1) LJ has given us 500K in the form of a loan secured by MC's property and which needs to be paid back with interest (4.75%). LJ has the option to convert the balance into shares at the rate of .075/shr
2) They have 50M shares to offer for sale that were priced at .04 for a total of $2M. So before they start giving us 250K/month or the escalated tranche of 500K/month or while they are doing the monthly tranches, they have to find buyers to purchase these .04 shares. So they will need to sell 6.25M shares per month at .04/share just to come close to breaking even.
How does that work for them if the stock price is above .04? Do they sell the shares at going market rate and pocket the difference?
Can someone please break this down in WSGI 101-financing-for- dummies like me?
This was associated with the 5.5M financing from La Jolla
I hope it means we are closer to getting the 250K/month in tranches and more news about how the proceeds will be used to grow the business - other than booking a room for the SHM and buying cases of water.
I guess my line of thinking was that it is expected, but not a done deal - meaning the registration. One of two things need to occur to start getting the 250K monthly tranche.
1) the registration becomes effective sometime after 91 days from closing.
or
2) the hard date of 180 days after closing occurs
So if we see the registration become effective between 91 and 180 days, I was thinking that showed a level of confidence from LJ that 250K per month is a good investment and the company will be needing that sort of consistent funding for positive reasons.
Thanks for the opine, Mide and others.
I hope the revs prove to be "significant" as stated and that they are related to direct sales to customers accessing our GTC USA site versus some form of subcontracted sales flowing through GTCL UK. I'll take sales revs by any means possible, but the following statement within our recent 10-K stll has me wondering how and what gets booked as a "sale" when our biggest client in 2011 is so closely affiliated with GTC USA.
NOTE 12. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The accounts receivable balance of $20,886 at December 31, 2011 is attributable to amounts due from Global Telesat Communications Ltd.
(“GTCL”). GTCL is based in the United Kingdom and is controlled by a current officer of GTC. Total sales to GTCL were $184,789, and
accounted for approximately 91% of WSGI’s total sales of $203,682 in 2011. The deferred revenues of $204,660 at December 31, 2011
include $4,660 associated with subscription sales to GTCL.
...........
As far as anticipating what might be coming without being overly promotional in the eyes of the SEC:
1)The K anticipates revs from UAV sales to come sometime in the next 12 months with additional testing spanning over the next several months so I think they are preparing us for an additional waiting period during the commercialization process. We continue to see that bringing the Argus to market is no easy task, BUT it seems to be closer now than at any other time in our company history given the DOD thumbs up for free flight capability and their continued interest in keeping our bird at the NV testing site. If they didn't see something with potential, we probably would be back in MD or in OK as was previously opined by many here.
2)GTC business coming to the forefront of recent PR's and less Argus news would seem to indicate that the ground station construction and ramping of GTC sales are on the front burner now especially with the recent 5.5M deal with LJ and Clark securing the initial 500K with his own assets. The appearance of a registration statement replacing the one that was deleted would be an even stronger "tell" that things are moving forward.
I agree that many positive changes are occurring and we should see the results of management's efforts within the next several months.
If you go to the Investors link on the WSGI website, you can view a quarterly income statement. The Q3 revs were the highest at 104K and the Q says these were all from GTC...so that is our benchmark, I believe.
At least there is growth, progress, and interest, but if they know the ballpark figure, why not at least express it in terms of units sold, minutes used, etc.? They have yet to break out what constitutes GTC sales revs in any of the Q's.
That round number of 500K will probably take the form of a deal for the applique which was valued at (drum roll)....500K.
But I believe that will revert to Phipps as per the GTC acquisition deal. But it's not so much the device, but the recurring revs that pass through it on a consistent basis. At least I hope that is a plus because we have no idea of how the revs will be calculated...is it per message? per minute? flat rate?
I will be impressed if MC can get the price to .108 by tomorrow.
be_real, Just speculalation at this point. Any deals in play or GTC revs what could replace the funding dollars they were looking for would be quite historical for WSGI
The K is due soon so it would be nice to be surprised with positive developments, but it could also be vanilla as you said, or filled with major disappointments too.
We know they got 500K at closing and LJ was intending to invest 250K per month at some later date. I had assumed the monthly tranches were tied in with the shares contained in the registration statement. Since the registration was not going to be effective until at least 90 days from the deal closing, the registration was pulled since that minimum requirement still has some time to go - at least that is what I thought.
Now, if there is a possibility that they don't need to pursue this funding because things are going better than what we know has been disclosed thus far...that would be a hoot, but you wouldn't know it based on our shareprice.
Good question...is it because the S-1 was released prior to the registration becoming effective as stated in the terms with La Jolla?
Per the 8-K:
On February 2, 2012 (the “Closing Date”), World Surveillance Group Inc. (the “Company”) closed on a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) with La Jolla Cove Investors, Inc. (“La Jolla”) relating to an aggregate $5.5 million financing, the initial investment of $500,000 of which was paid at closing, for the issuance by the Company of a 4 ¾% Secured Convertible Debenture (the “Debenture”) and an Equity Investment Agreement (the “EIA”) subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein (the “Financing”).
Pursuant to the EIA, La Jolla has agreed to invest in the Company an aggregate of $5.0 million in minimum monthly tranches of $250,000 beginning on the date that is earlier to occur of (i) the effectiveness of the Registration Statement but in no event prior to 91 days after the Closing Date, or (ii) one hundred eighty (180) days following the Closing Date and on each successive thirty (30) day anniversary of such initial investment date; provided, however, that such minimum investment shall increase from $250,000 to $500,000 as long as the VWAP of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.00001 per share (the “Common Stock”) is above $0.09 for the period of ten (10) consecutive Trading Days prior to an investment date; and provided, further, however, that La Jolla shall invest an additional $500,000 on each investment date for each and every increase in the VWAP of the Company’s Common Stock of at least $0.02 above $0.09 for the period of ten (10) consecutive Trading Days prior to an investment date. Pursuant to the EIA, La Jolla also has a right to purchase up to an additional $5,000,000 of Common Stock of the Company, or an aggregate of 23,809,523 shares, at a purchase price equal to $0.21 as follows: on each investment date, La Jolla shall receive the right to purchase a number of shares of Common Stock equal to the amount invested on such investment date divided by $0.21. Under no circumstances will the Common Stock pursuant to this right be settled on a cashless exercise basis.
Thanks, Mide. Makes more sense now. It's not seeking to patent the original design of the "worm" but the various improvements that were made after the fact - a better mousetrap so to speak.
I was looking at Dr. K's filing and noticed this.
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000012699446
Does this mean his original filing was not up to snuff thereby giving WSGI the green light to file with all the right stuff?
We seem to be building up to the moment we have been hoping for. I don't know of too many people who would collateralize their house for a long shot.
So today's filing means they will potentially take care of covering the rest of covering the other countries with the US filing? That would indeed be big if granted.
I wonder if there is any overlap with the Dr. K patent filing or if the new patent builds off the Dr's work in some way? I remember there was a granting of certain intellectual property under the old Sanswire-TAO agreement, but am just not sure what happens to that after the breakup agreement? The Dr. was given a decent amount of consideration in the breakup and stands to benefit with a share increase so it's probably a mute point.
Take a look at this company out of AL.
http://www.globalcomsatphone.com/satellite/services/globalstar.html
They carry a broad line of Sat phones from various carriers and mention calling their number for GSA pricing on GSAT phones.
So we aren't the only ones selling these items, but we do have our own line of GTC branded products.
http://www.gtc-usa.com/satphone/GTC-Customized-Tracking-Devices.html
I assume that these will give us the most return since we sell the GTC hardware and the resulting traffic and tracking software reveue are all going to GTC's bottom line versus being a reseller of other's products.
Now my question is....how much of the traffic resulting from the products we sell are going to go through our applique's and hit our free accounts? Is GTC like a cell company whereby the phones and data products they sell all direct traffic through our applique and switches to some extent? In the same way a Verizon or ATT sells phones from other manufacturers, but the accounts they sign up form a recurring revenue stream using minutes within their proprietary network?
We may have to wait for the K's or Q's to come out in order to get a better idea of how the revs are generated outside of handset sales.
Pardon my butt too - they'll say it doesn't mean a thing until product is manufactured, delivered, payment is received, and the check clears.
Until we see what G3 can do for us, I'll have to agree. I remember the optimism when IRG (Investor Relations Group) was brought on board and we see where that got us.
But this time, we seem better positioned to get something going.
1) better funding
2) a UAV in advanced stages of development and testing with the DOD
3) GTC selling an established product line
4) A management team with a plan that is being executed as they said they would..they laid out a plan at the last SHM and we are starting to see the pieces being put into place several months later.
Things to look for that they anticipated:
1) groundstation contract
2) full patent filing (due by tomorrow)
3) signs that the UML collaboration is being grown
4) additional board appointees
Hopefully, we will finally see a contract coming out of all this with dollars attached and growing GTC recurring revs.
True, Bear. Time will tell what sort of revenue they hope to generate and what sort of traffic is going to use our "free" accounts for starters.
They said the Easton station has a 2000 mile radius - that covers a lot of territory. Cover the rest of the US with another ground station (I thought there was one in Mexico already) and we have the infrastructure in place and available right now. They just have to start selling devices and get some recurring revenue going.
Phipps is still due 250K, I believe, for his Easton applique but it looks like he is working at getting things in place to grow the GTC US side of the business.
When the PR first came out, I browsed to the website and it was looking pretty weak and not rendering very well in my IE browser. The updates must not have rolled out completely, but now it looks much better. At fist I had a flashback to the Magicphone days, but thankfully, they rolled out a better site this time. I would expect a better product rollout given the UK experience they have with their products sales.
Now I am wondering about the applique usage...Easton was the only location in the US that had one so I wonder if the plan is to build more groundstations or will the Argus play a role?
I anticipate a patent filing PR based on the following info from the S-1.
We filed a provisional patent application on our Argus One airship in February 2011; we have
until February 17, 2012 to file a U.S. non-provisional application or our provisional application lapses
In a previous PR, Space Florida was supposed to be getting a performance data package as a result of the tests. I guess if they paid for the info, that info isn't getting released until they say so.
True - without a dollar figure for the UAV or GTC portion of the business, we aren't moving anywhere, but a quick google search shows that at least the word is getting out. The "word", though is due more to the unique shape of the Argus (chuckle) rather than it's capabilities which seem to be secondary to many of the articles.
But for us, any press is good press as long as the "fraud" and "failure" words aren't part of it and once past the unique design, some articles make mention of the testing being done in NV and the positive attributes of the design.
I don't think the jokes will go away anytime soon , but if we get a contract, I think the design might even be an asset to the marketing since it is an image that will stick in people's minds.
Not sure about now, but at one time, there was a relationship between the two that was supposed to result in an Applique install in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The installation was shut down a few years back, but apparently, there is a renewed insterest of some sort.
Whether it is the same groundstation and whether GTC is going to have an applique placed there has yet to be revealed....but it's something to consider given the renewal of certain arrangements between GSAT and GTC in early 2011.
http://ir.stockpr.com/wsgi/sec-filings?page=4#document-20653-0001144204-11-054273
Good question, BDay.
Maybe they have turned over enough info and training for the DOD team to perform the tests? Although if Eastcor has poured so much effort into it, I would think they would want to maintain control over their own creation until the testing is finalized.
Maybe they can control the test from MD? Wouldn't that be a kicker? Just have the N2S2 folks drag it out of the hangar and flip the switch in MD?
Maybe the DOD is footing the bill for the testing, or maybe some of the funding from Space Florida is being used as certain milestones are achieved. You could be correct and WSGI needs to foot all the costs too. They seem to be getting funding from somewhere to keep the lights on and get these tests done so it could be coming from various private or partner budgets, or maybe GTC revs are helping in a small way.
With each new PR, there are more questions to bring up, but at least it's better than the lights being turned off.
Interesting choice of words in this PR:
They completed the initial demostrations - they did not say they "successfully" completed the demo...yet the Argus remains station at N2S2 rather than going back home. So I assume they saw enough to want to continue or they decided that any shortcomings would be worked on at the N2S2 site rather than going back and forth between the NV and MD facilities. Maybe they don't want to mention the "success" word until all demoes have been completed?
The creation of the perfomance data package was not mentioned.
Eastcor was still involved at the time of the demo.
They used the word "hover" instead of free flight or race-track operations...
We see that there are 3rd party considerations to releasing certain info - which we knew.
Obviously more work needs to be done, but it's nice to see the confirmation of the demo.
That would be something, would it not? The tethered testing process may have yielded enough useful data to submit for consideration to the RFI. What if the MTS also has the added benefit of breaking free of the tether for free flight operations? That's an additional value added bonus for the purchaser.
Another scenario..what if they already have their eye on our MTS and they just need to go through the formal process of competitive bidding as a formality?
Interesting..if this is the same one, the MTS seems to meet most of the criteria. The only question I have is about the power requirements and the intended payload. The RFI does not list the payload or weight...just the power reqs.
Solicitation Number:
W91CRB-AEROSTAT
Notice Type:
Sources Sought
Synopsis:
Added: Dec 06, 2011 8:10 am
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION; no award will be made as a result of this request. This request for information (RFI) is for informational purposes only; this is not a Request for Proposal (RFP). All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this RFI. The Government will not pay for information and materials received in response to this RFI, and is in no way obligated by the information received.
1. SCOPE.
Background: The mission of the U.S. Army Rapid Equipping Force (REF) is to rapidly increase mission capability while reducing risk to Soldiers and others by equipping operational commanders with off-the-shelf (government or commercial) solutions or near-term developmental items that can be researched, developed and acquired quickly. The REF receives requirements from operational commanders in war zones setting forth the capabilities needed. The REF is chartered by the Senior Army leadership to provide material solutions to meet these requirements in a significantly reduced timeline compared to traditional Department of Defense acquisition procedures.
The purpose of this RFI is to obtain technical and cost information from manufacturers regarding the availability of Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) or Government-off -the- Shelf (GOTS) modular compact aerostat and payload deployment units with launch commanded by a hand held controller. The purpose of this aerostat platform system is to obtain potential solutions to provide small tactical units with an Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capability. Alternative solutions submitted by companies responding to this RFI will be considered.
Experience and information obtained from this request for information may be provided to Army Product Manager REF who will evaluate the information and feasibility of issuing a procurement action to resolve the stated problem.
2. REQUIREMENTS.
The REF has a need for an Aerostat, Platform, and Deployment System during day, night, and all weather conditions. Any information received should provide the following minimum capabilities:
2.1.1. General Requirements
a. System: A modular compact helium filled aerostat and payload deployment system. Launch can be remotely commanded by a hand held controller.
b. Utilization: Can deploy and elevate cameras, relays, and other sensors to a height of a minimum of 1000 feet in 20 minutes or less. Suited for direct exposure to all weather conditions. May remain elevated for a period of at least 4 days without additional top off
c. Personnel requirements: Requires no more than 2-3 personnel at any time to perform any and all functions
d. Portability: Must be easily transported my most military vehicles in an integral fashion or in a custom designed trailer mount vehicle. The entire system, including the helium bottles, etc. must be easily transportable on one vehicle or trailer.
2.1.2. Environmental conditions
a. All system components with the exception of ground station must be IAW MIL-STD-810F.
b. Deployment wind speed of a minimum 10 knots is required
c. Balloon and tether must be able to survive 40-knot maximum sustained wind.
d. Balloon and tether must be able to operate continuously in 30 knot maximum sustained wind and 35 knot gusts.
e. Aerostat shall able to perform surveillance at 1000 feet above ground level (AGL) within an operational window of zero - 10,000 feet MSL.
2.1.3. Balloon Assembly
a. The aerostat shall be no greater than 40 feet in length, 20 ft. in height, 16 ft. in diameter, with a hull volume of 5000 ft3 for a helium fill of 98% purity, fin volume less than 300 ft3 , ballonet size 15%, weight under 130 lbs.
b. Aerostat will have markings (e.g. alternating color panels) that will increase visibility to air traffic.
c. Aerostat will incorporate an Anti-collision/obstruction Lighting System with Red and IR emitters.
d. Flight duration of at least four (4) days with no helium refills.
e. Tether shall incorporate flags or similar devices to enhance visibility.
f. Manual or electrical-powered winch with a remote hand held controller. Winch system will provide for extension and retraction of tether without binding or damage to tether.
g. The Flight tether length shall be a minimum of 1100 feet. Tether shall incorporate flags or similar devices to enhance visibility. It shall be composed of aramid core and polyester braid with a breaking strength of at least 5000 lbs, weight no more than 26 lbs, and include two (2) conductors of 20 AWG stranded copper.
h. Aerostat shall comply with the requirements of Federal Aviation Administration Regulation Part 101 Moored Balloons, Kites, Unmanned Rockets and Unmanned Free Balloons
2.1.4 Power Requirements
a. Deployment battery system - 24 volts DC
b. Charging system - 90-240 volts AC at 50/60HZ
c. Tether line - 384 volts DC
d. Continuous power at aerostat - 360 watts
e. Peak power at aerostat - 500 watts
2.1.5 Deployment System (Not including Helium)
a. Footprint - 60" X 60"
b. Length - 156"
c. Width - 60"
d. Height - 76"
e. Height with mooring mast - 120"
f. Total Weight - approximately 2,500 lbs.
2.1.6 Operations Requirements
a. Deployable to 1000 ft.
b. Recoverable from 1000 ft. and deflateable in a maximum of 20 minutes
c. Top-up fill time of 20 minutes or less at ground level
d. Redeployable with a second envelope container in 40 minutes or less
e. Envelope field repairable for damage from small arms fire or equivalent
f. Launch pad height - 4500 ft. maximum
g. Launch pad diameter - 60 ft. minimum
2.1.7 Performance Requirements
a. General - See 2.1.1 above.
b. Envelope and Container - The envelope shall be fabricated from urethane impregnated nylon with an external bayonet with the aerostat approximately 40' long and 20 ' tall with deployment in 20 minutes or less to a height of 1000. The deflated aerostat must be housed in a reusable container for rapid loading, launch and reloading. The envelope must also be inflatable from a mast, not just from the container.
c. Base Unit and Rotator Assembly - The aerostat requires a base unit that supports launch, flight management, and recovery. It should incorporate an integrated gantry design and payload cradle. A retractable integrated mooring mast assembly is required to support storage and maintenance of the aerostat while the envelope is inflated. The base unit must house an integrated winch assembly with automatic level wind and powered tether with a converter to provide 384 volts DC to a sensor payload. The base unit must also house two (2) 12 volt DC batteries, a power converter (24 volt DC to 384 volt DC), a rotation system, a power distribution module, a payload containment vessel, helium valves, a regulator, and re-supply hoses. The Deployment System details in 2.1.5 above apply in enabling a footprint which fits most FMTV and MTVR military vehicles, similar sized trucks, or tactical trailers. A hand held one button deployment/winch control is a required accessory.
d. Payloads - The Aerostat, Platform, and Delivery System must accommodate a variety of payloads. A modular bar assembly is required to support such a variety of payloads as imaging sensors, direction finding, communications relays, a variety of cameras, and signals intelligence. Data transfer via a wireless encrypted internet protocol bridge to a laptop computer workstation with standard network interfaces is the minimum capability required.
2.1.8 Safety Certification Requirements
Aerostat must have Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) Safety Certification or equivalent.
3. DELIVERABLES
Specific information on industry capability to produce a system that can meet the requirements identified in paragraph two (2) above, or otherwise solves the problem: Aerostat (Balloon), Platform, and Delivery System.
This is NOT a Request for Proposal. Companies who desire to participate in this market survey are encouraged to submit a white paper which supports the company's claim that it presently has the technology, qualifications, and capabilities to satisfy one or more of the performance and technical objectives described above. The white paper should discuss the company's ability to develop and or provide existing technologies that have the ability to Aerostat Deception. Companies should provide a ROM (rough order of magnitude) price and its anticipated delivery for the solution proposed.
The white paper should also discuss related company experience and include point(s) of contact. The white paper should be prepared in MS Word, limited to ten (10) pages, and submitted electronically to the contract speicalist at bonita.m.zander.civ@mail.mil. The company shall be responsible for any costs associated with preparing responses to this market research. All requests for further information must be made in writing or via email; telephone requests for additional information will not be honored. The government will review RFI submissions as they are received. The government reserves the right to close this RFI once they have received adequate response(s) to this RFI.
RESPONSES ARE DUE NO LATER THAN 21 DECEMBER 2011 AT 5:00 PM EASTERN STANDARD TIME.
For questions potential respondents shall contact the contract specialist, Bonita Zander, at bonita.m.zander.civ@mail.mil to obtain information.
Email communication is highly encouraged.
Contracting Office Address:
ACC-APG SCRT - Aberdeen, ATTN: AMSSB-ACC-A, 4118 Susquehanna Avenue, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-3013
Place of Performance:
ACC-APG SCRT - Aberdeen ATTN: CCAP-SCD, 4118 Susquehanna Avenue Aberdeen Proving Ground MD
21005-3013
US
Point of Contact(s):
Bonita Zander, 410-306-2665
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=40abfd23355d368732576e769ccd57f2&_cview=0
I was wondering about this as well. Since the weight specs are only off by 7 lbs., I was wondering if they could lose the gimble portion and have Argus itself act as a pseudo gimble since they claim it has the ability to pivot?
Sami - if indeed true and if it's powered by the GTC applique, one can only imagine how much message traffic will be going through them 24/7?
I like the Space Florida piece at the end with committment to the Performance Data Package. Not to mention the two different facilites hosting the Argus - Nevada and Oklahoma. DOD, UML, N2S2, ECE....they've definitely generated and accelerated the level of interest in our tech. They must feel pretty close to achieving that free-flight milestone.
Agreed, Mide.
Not to mention the visual progress on the POD and propulsion design. We know the YUMA tests cleared us for free flight testing at some point in the future, and they continue to believe their goal is within reach. Otherwise, why bother with the reengineering and tweaking not to mention the funding?
The GTC info was important for me as well since it implies the services listed on the UK site might find their way to the US at some point along with corresponding revenue streams.
WW, that will be interesting to find out what technology is going to be used for video. I had assumed that GTC would be using GSAT to do this, but any broadband that GTC is currently using in the UK seems to be using Inmarsat, Thuraya, or Iridium broadband while GTC/GSAT relations seems dedicated to SPOT and phone.
Granted US is a different locale and there are probably different allowances made here vs. overseas in terms of frequencies and carriers, but it's not readily apparent to me what form the broadband stuff is going to be here.
mide, it seems to me that Phipps does have a pretty sweet deal on his hands that would handsomely benefit both him and WSGI if he is able to get simplex/dulpex traffic flowing in the US.
He retained the UK piece and accounts (both UK and existing US) without having to share those ops with WSGI. He'll get 250K from us for the applique in MD plus a cut of a groudstation construction in India as well.
I think WSGI will get a piece of the groundstation contruct as well and the free accounts imply that they will have a higher margin impact on the bottom line as people are signed up. After that is when we start to benefit. They hope to get certification for their devices in the US by end of 2011 and then we should be getting a piece of the US GTC operations as the traffic starts to flow. We really need Phipps to do this and also get some more groundstation contracts for the company to see any benefit. We don't know if there is a catalyst that will cause all of this to start or if they are actively working on getting this done separate from the UAV stuff.
That's just my take from the filings so far. I don't know how the UK division is doing in terms of revenue, but if the model is successful, I hope it can translate to a similar subscriber base here.
Now what is so special about the tech that allowed Hussein to be captured as a byproduct? I am sure we will never find out how that worked or what additional shadowy uses are in store. Maybe it served it's purpose, and the plan is to reuse the technical infrastructure for commercial purposes now?
Mide, I would welcome such a change of pace in PR timing, but if we only have past expereince as a guide, I would agree that they have not finalized the dates as of yet. The prior PR indicated that they would share definitive dates once established.
Curious as to why the WSGI website has reverted back to the July video and not the most recent one.
BDay and Mide...is the campaign targeted toward the VC crowd or the retail investor? If it is those with deep pockets, could that mean a campaign is in the process of being formulated behind the scenes and the folks at our level may or may not ever see that level of doc with a business plan and other tidbits until further down the road?
I keep thinking back to what Clark said in CO...the funding for these sort of things usually comes only after the DOD or such entity has given the seal of approval by confirming with actual orders for the stuff. That would mean the widget cert must happen first and maybe even the payload demoes too.
We still don't know if GSAT's delay for the Oct batch of sats is affecting their test plans and how much the hangar mishap has delayed things as well. Things were progressing nicely until that, but what can they do except press forward.
A ground station contract for GTC as well as increasing revs from the activation of existing North American ones after the French OK might be a nice addition at this point that could get the shareprice moving again. But I still don't know how much GTC revenue was retained for WSGI's side of the deal since it sounded like the majority of existing accounts were transferred to the UK operation of GTC as part of the deal.
No mention of us..but Eastcor is planning on expansion.
Site plan approved for Eastcor Engineering's new building
Defense contractor to move to Easton Technology Park
http://www.stardem.com/business/article_cf99d313-a0cd-548d-bdc2-2687fa10e2ac.html
Posted: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:00 am | Updated: 10:19 am, Wed Sep 21, 2011.
By CAROLYN SWIFT Business Editor | 0 comments
EASTON Eastcor Engineering is moving ahead with its planned relocation to the Easton Technology Park, after the Easton Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved the sketch site plan Thursday for the company's new 27,730-square-foot manufacturing facility.
Currently located on Brooks Drive in Easton, the defense contractor mainly deals with air transportation-type issues, said Bill Stagg of Lane Engineering, who added much of what the company does cannot be discussed publicly.
Eastcor is ready to expand, though, Stagg said, and the technology park off Airport Road seems like a good fit, since it will provide the space, privacy and security the company needs.
One of the products the company manufactures is satellite dishes, which can be found in the storage area at any given time. As a result, the company has a need for increased security, Stagg said, and is proposing to enclose its work yard at the new location with an 8-foot fence.
Eastcor also is proposing heavy landscaping around the property to help screen the large, one-story building and create more privacy.
Before the commissioners approved the site plan, Current Planner Zach Smith said the site plan meets all of the town's technical standards.
"This is the type of high-tech business we constantly say we need more of," he said. "It seems to fit well in the technology park."
I am not sure if any of there recent mods would require a re-do in the form of an abbreviated tether test prioro to free flight cert, and then payload testing. Since a firm Oct date was never Pr'd and this recent PR states 'near future' rather than October, I hope they are able to still keep the October slot that was expected and are able to expand it for contiguous testing. There is always the chance that it could be pushed out further, but my impatient self hopes it's sooner rather than later.
I wonder if the lack of photos or video has anything to do with the anticipated provisional patent and protection process? They took the other video down and only continue to show the Argus shots from the pre-WSGI days.
At least we finally got some indication of progress.