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 would like to think that they have done a certain amount of payload testing since - I think - it was mentioned at the SHM that Eastcor has an applique in MD. To test it for the first time in Yuma seems to be a bit risky, but maybe the payload pod specs allow for plug and play simplicity as long as the tech partners follow the specs.
The amended Q and K might be a prerequisite for additional funding as well...but the lack of additional confirming info after the Yuma mishap with the passing of the 9/9 repair deadline is a bit concerning. I just hope it's because they are waiting for confirmed test dates and a finalized, comprehensive plan to share.
WW, how do you think the launch delay with the next set of Globalstar sats will affect October testing? It seemed coincidental that the Oct Yuma test was scheduled after the anticipated launch to further support North America coverage. GSAT did indicate that US coverage has improved after the last launch, but I wonder if it is sufficient for the payload test or if it will push the test dates further out.
The S-1 shares some contract history between GTC and Globalstar including the contract signed in 2/2011 - intent to build a ground station by EOY 2011 and access to 10K accounts through 2025.
Some former employees are going to need some cash once these penalties are finalized.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court
order Lynch to pay a penalty of $780,000.
August 4, 2011
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court
order Huff to pay a penalty of $1.21 million, disgorgement of $1.5 million and
prejudgment interest $525,038.89.
Calculating from December 31, 2005 to March 31, 2011, the Commission
estimates that prejudgment interest on $1.5 million would be $525,038.89.
August 5, 2011
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court
order Monterosso and Vargas are jointly and severally liable to pay disgorgement of
$675,000 and prejudgment interest of $231,043. The Commission respectfully requests
the Court also order Monterosso to pay a penalty of $780,000 and order Vargas to pay a
penalty of $390,000.
August 17, 2011
Mide, makes sense given the contents of the SHM presentation docs. Argus 2 delivery in 2012 and Strat in 2013.
If they can prove the Argus 1 is the real deal and develop a revenue generating business around this UAV, the funding for successor ship development would seem to be a given.
At the CO seminar, Clark mentioned that funding for these things is not easy to come by until it is first proven via a military contract of some sort. - hopefully Yuma will give us that entre.
be_real..I was thinking the same thing could happen too. A pristine test and they can pack it in early or accelerate some of the payload testing. Pretty exciting times if that is the case.
Cool, I would like to think that is the case, but there are a few variables that need to be considered such as new design, new environment, no tether. It sounded like Eastcor tested the snot out of this UAV given the limitations in MD, but you never know. Look at what happened with LM's crash in the woods. There is a quiet and understated confidence with this new group which probably bodes well for the long-term success and street cred if certification is successful. Much preferrable to the pump and fail of the previous group although the CNBC and Discovery Channel expose's were sure exciting to see and gave the illusion that all was well behind the hangar door in Palmdale.
rattlewatch, thanks for that diligent comparison.
For those familiar with the process, who reviews this stuff and determines that changes are warranted to this extent? Are these sort of modifications common or could the SEC have reviewed what was previously submitted and wanted the clarifications included given the recent SEC settlement guidelines?
Space Florida wants to build out a manufacturing facility. I wonder if we will get to use part of it? The SHM reported being able to produce 7/month in FL and 3/month in MD which tells me someone is thinking ahead.
http://www.spaceflorida.gov/images/stories/docs/(1)%20%20RFP-SF-23-0-2012-KW%20%20Architectural%20and%20Engineering%20Services%20%20071811finaltopublish.pdf
What do you guys make of this? (courtesy of Coastie on yahoo)
http://www.globalair.com/d-TPP_pdf/00511argus.pdf
Quite a coincidence...Argus2 (not 1) and document refers to timeframe of our Yuma test? Regardless of the syntax, YUMA certification is about perfoming to altitude and persistence specs. So they let it loose in the AZ skys and we wait for it to land in 2-3 days.
Agreed, Mide and Over...GTC has a very interesting history if the reports about Hirschfeld are true. From a purely technical standpoint, the GSAT network and the appliques/groundstations provided by GTC can be used to carry all sorts of data.
From what I can gather, the GSAT network is referred to as a bent-pipe architecture which is just used to relay the data from point A to B. The actual ground station and the appliques located on the ground are the devices which actually receive and decode the simplex data from the devices transmitting within the ground station raduis. So if I understand it correctly, the beauty of the appliques and ground stations is that they can be modified as needed rather than changing the hardware at the satellite level.
So if GTC was initially created to assist the Gov with tracking the bad guys in Iraq and are no longer needed for that task, GTC U.S. needs to figure out how to reuse the infrastructure and relationships gained during these special ops for commercial usage and future profits with Argus playing a key role along with ground station construction in India (mentioned at SHM) and Afghanistan (existing point in 6.06/07 of the 8-k purchase agreement).
Lot's of stuff still needs to fall into place and the first order of business is that Yuma test beginning within the next week or so.
I was under the impression that the low revenues from GTC would begin to grow as the Globalstar (GSAT) constellation became reestablished, but after seeing these numbers, I went back to look at the puchase agreement with GTC and am confused as to what we really obtained in the deal.
1) 1270 active accounts were transferred to a UK company
2) we don't own the Easton applique...but have the right to purchase it for 500K from Phipps in the future.
So was the purchase of GTC U.S. strictly for the existing relationships and potential contracts to build ground stations and any network traffic going forward, but any existing sales were retained by Phipps and the GTC UK arm?
Regarding the STS story....I was just wondering if you meant the old S2A which was shipped back which is now known as the SkySat. Sounds like it is still on the table as a design possibility for free flight or tethered aerostat application. Unless they meant we had an AIRCHAIN/STS~111 that was sent to them. We know they shipped an STS to MD and then we returned it to TAO again before the Argus was unveiled.
Regardless, it is evident that it is being treated and protected as "our" tech at the present time.
Did any Eastcor engineers make a presentation or was Dan the techie?
Thx, Over...by any chance, did they mention any details about the payloads being used and the L-3 relationship?
I get the impression, from the latest filing, that the Argus will be serving as a surrogate ground station for the GTC network. But with the recent Yuma PR and test video, I am wondering if there was an issue with stability and vibration with the payload located in the nose segment which forced a design change to a more stable and isolated pod bay mounted in the second segment.
Maybe both payload bays are still in play based on differing customer needs? Just curious about the technology and "geek" factor. Liked the Argus multi-eyed logo too.
Guess payload bay location and contents mean nothing without the flight worthiness certification which says a lot about the importance of the upcoming flight tests.
Thanks to all who attended and for sharing your impressions about what you heard and saw.
Looks like the Argus video was been updated a bit. A few different angles and a little higher resolution.
It looks to be tethered and the pod at the front is missing a section or it's been redesigned. Still can't tell whether an engine is running. Looks to be more of a float test than flight test and I hope it's limited by airspace restrictions and not for lack of technology.
Just to add - I would think our customers would not want to risk damage to their equipment. We're talking L-3 and who knows what other vendors' stuff so they must feel confident that their tech will be safe while airborne in Yuma, IMHO.
"post traumatic stress disorder impatience"
LOL - that's a great analogy. I was a little disappointed by the test delay, but it's only because I got so used to the improved execution of the company and a management team that has pretty much delivered on what they said they were going to do. I think this was one of the few PR's where they mentioned a hard set of dates and then had to change the timeframe. But it's only by a few months, at most, according to their new estimates and it is for a good reason - IMHO.
If you are trying to land business with a new, and innovative solution designed to support multiple devices from different customers and someone comes to you with a request to accomodate some additional "stuff" - would you not want to take the time to do so if all other parties agreed that the delay was in the best interest of the project? What if it were FEMA? Would that make the delay acceptable then?
I am not discounting the possibility that the technology could be flawed. Afterall, there is no contract to purchase a fleet of Argus, and the purpose of the Yuma test is to provide further evidence that the Eastcor folks know how to engineer a commercial grade UAV solution. Remember too, that the Yuma tests are to set the precedent for an experimental license from the FAA so we still have a ways to go.
It's always possible that the Eastcor folks bit off more than they could chew and they are scrambling to save face and buy more time. If they are evasive at the SHM and we have another delay for Yuma, then the naysayers might be closer to the right prediction that this continues to be nothing more than a scam company who fails to execute.
The test video, to me, showed visual proof of the Argus lofted higher than 10's of feet above the earth. It can ascend and descend. Was it tethered? Was it it free flight? Was the motor operational? I could not tell. Was it possible that the Argus was being towed? Notice the vehicle moving to the right at the begiinning of the video as the Argus was being pulled from the hangar. Plus the upward pitch of the nose for most of the time could indicate that it was being pullled against the wind like a kite. I would not be the least bit suprised if it were tethered since it's been stated that previous testing required the UAV to be secured to the ground due to imposed regulatory restrictions. Yuma was going to provide the arena for untethered testing.
The PR stated it has been tested to 2500'....the Argus MTS specs talk about a solution for 3000' so maybe there is a connection.
Some other design changes can be seen comparing the older pix of the Argus where the head segment connection material covered more area than the link between the head and body in the video. Plus there is now some sort of box mounted under the second segment.
This certainly makes for interesting discussion.
Not that anyone cares about this...but maybe some here might find it interesting.
03/31/2011 475 ORDER GRANTING 312 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Monterosso, GRANTING 335 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Vargas, DENYING 341 Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DENYING AS MOOT 305 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Andrew Leone, 317 Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Blaine Gilles, 337 Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Stanley Murphy, 382 Defendants' Motion to Strike Declaration of Stanley Murphy, 414 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Contraband, 416 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Monterosso from Contradicting Admissions, and 418 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Calling SEC Employee, and CLOSING case. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 3/31/2011. (mhz) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
The following is from a Dec 2008 PR. I get the impression that this transfer gives SNSR license to change things as they see fit. In today's PR, the word "unveil" means we are close to the big reveal - whatever form that takes.
Will this be the STS-111 or the 5 segment version on TAO's website that mentioned testing of new stabilization systems or will it be an Eastcor orginial design change? In Clark's Colorado speech, he made mention of design changes such as use of a heavier material for durability reasons at the expense of persistence so Eastcor has been doing something in that hangar.
Is Dr. K still involved? Not sure on that either, but isn't his name part of the SNSR-TAO renewal at SunBiz.org? Plus TAO is still listed as a partner on the EastcorEng website for what it's worth.
Sanswire Joint Venture Assigned Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Patent Licenses
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL and STUTTGART, GERMANY--(MARKET WIRE)--Dec 18, 2008 -- Sanswire Corp. (Other OTC:SNSR.PK - News) (www.sanswire.com) and TAO Technologies GmbH today announced that, pursuant to their previously executed agreement, TAO has assigned to the Sanswire-TAO Corp. joint venture (www.sanswiretao.com) certain of the patents and intellectual property licenses to its lighter-than-air, remotely operated airships. The agreement calls for the transfer of the exclusive rights to utilize the patents and intellectual property for all projects originated in North America.
"Completion of this phase cements Sanswire's and TAO's shared dedication to UAV deployment, and gives the Sanswire shareholders the U.S. and international protection for the critical assets that are enabling the Company to move forward," stated Jonathan Leinwand, Chief Executive Officer of Sanswire.
TAO is the inventor of various patents in Germany including patent applications registered for worldwide protection under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The patents and intellectual property cover the technology harnessed in Sanswire-TAO's low-, medium-, and high-altitude platforms as well as other products and systems to be built for potential commercial and governmental clients. The transfer of the intellectual property to Sanswire-TAO further assures the Company's ability to exploit the technologies in those markets.
Certain processes within the technologies are proprietary, and provide unique competitive advantages to the program -- specifically the patented segmented cell design, the custom autonomous flight controls and the recently filed international patent application for the propulsion system with energy medium.
The patents involved in the transfer are:
-- German Patent DE 100 10 647.1-42, filed March 3, 2000 and published on
June 9, 2001, entitled Airship (with automatic regulation), including any
continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, re-examinations or re-
issue patents derived therefrom
-- German Utility Model: DE 200 04 028.6, filed March 3, 2000 and
published on July 9, 2001, entitled Airship, including any continuations,
continuations-in-part, divisionals, re-examinations or re-issue patents
derived therefrom
-- International Applications PCT/EP2008/059879, filed July 28, 2008,
entitled Segmented Aircraft with Energy Medium, including all corresponding
United States, Canadian and Mexican patent applications and any
continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, re-examinations or re-
issue patents derived therefrom
-- All applications or patents corresponding to Patent No. P11.267DE,
including all corresponding United States, Canadian and Mexican patent
applications and any continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, re-
examinations or re-issue patents derived therefrom
Under terms of the agreement to form Sanswire-TAO Corp., announced June 19, the joint venture owns the exclusive rights to utilize the patents and intellectual property for projects that originate in North America. The Company believes that most global solutions for which its UAV platforms would be designed will be initiated by entities within the United States.
Based on Mrs. Johnson's comp plan, some options are just awarded as a function of time.
But we continue to see cash invested to settle SEC litigation, fund ongoing ops, and Joe DiMauro's 200K note, etc. There must be a reason for optimism when people put up that kind of cash.
(a) Base Salary. The Executive will receive a salary at the rate of $140,000 annually (the “Base Salary”), payable in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices and subject to applicable taxes and withholding. The Executive’s Base Salary may from time to time be increased, but not decreased, by the Board.
(b) Bonus. The Executive will be eligible for an annual bonus for each fiscal year at the discretion of the Board (the “Bonus”). The Bonus for a particular fiscal year will be payable within 75 days of the end of such fiscal year. The payment of any Bonus shall be prorated for any partial fiscal year during the term of this Agreement. The Board shall determine in good faith the amount of the Bonus, and such determination shall be binding and conclusive on the Executive.
(c) Signing Bonus. On or promptly following the Effective Date, the Company will issue Executive One Million (1,000,000) shares of restricted Common Stock of the Company (the “Restricted Stock”). The Restricted Stock shall vest as follows: Five Hundred Thousand (500,000) shares shall vest on the six (6) month anniversary of the Effective Date and the remaining Five Hundred Thousand (500,000) shares shall vest on the twelve (12) month anniversary of the Effective Date. The vesting on the Restricted Stock shall accelerate in full upon a change in control of the Company. As a condition to the issuance of these shares, the Executive will be required to enter into a restricted stock agreement satisfactory to the Company.
(d) Stock Options. On or promptly following the Effective Date, the Company will grant Executive stock options (the “Options”) to purchase One Million Three Hundred Thousand (1,300,000) shares of the Common Stock of the Company. The Options shall be issued pursuant to, and subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s equity incentive plan (the “Equity Plan”) and shall have an exercise price set as the Fair Market Value per share (as defined in the Equity Plan) as of the grant date. The Options granted to Executive shall vest as follows: cliff vesting of 100% of the Options on the ninety (90) day anniversary of the Effective Date. The vesting on the Options shall accelerate in full and be fully vested and exercisable upon a change of control of the Company. In addition, it is anticipated that, based on performance and at the discretion of the Board, additional option grants may be made approximately annually.
I just noticed that a video was posted on the TAO site to go along with the 12/10 test flight...either it showed up recently or I just didn't notice.
http://www.tao-group.de/en_tec-news.html
I hope so too, but I also wonder if the release of such news is complicated by the consolidation of the GTEL case with the original Joe and Luis case. Add Lynch, Huff, and any other names that came up as the onion was peeled, and I think the drafting of settlement language that everyone agrees too starts to get complicated. Not impossible, just time consuming.
Huff's original settlement of 30K and Lynch's too, were signed months before the SEC released their case against GTEL which then mentioned that a settlement had occurred with these two - this was when the focus was on Joe and Luis and before it became apparent that Huff was more liable than originally thought. That is why it would not surprise me if we did not hear about an accepted settlement for awhile.
TAO has mentioned landing gear and we have seen physical evidence that their segmented test ships have something mounted under the engine. In test videos, there is someone catching it upon landing, though. I don't see how someone would want to catch the STS-4XX or even the STS-230. I wonder if the 5 segmented ship in the video is the 230 as it is hard to tell the size without a physical object next to it.
I find it interesting that the old S2A/Skysat has a theoretical ceiling in the 40k range which is higher than any any segmented version other than the big boy Strat.
The S2 is on US soil and has been partially funded by GTC whereas the STS111 is being additionally funded by our insiders. Is the S2 further along than STS-111 to make an outside firm pony up that kind of dough?
The slides are downloadable from each presentation which was a nice touch.
http://haans.rmtech.org/Panel.php?panel_id=107
TAO is planning on posting something on 2010-11-12:
http://www.tao-group.de/en_adventure-capital.html
Conference presentation links are up:
http://haans.rmtech.org/
Preferred Shares waived.....
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/101012/snsr.ob8-k.html
Form 8-K for SANSWIRE CORP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-Oct-2010
Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sh
ITEM 2.03 CREATION OF A DIRECT FINANCIAL OBLIGATION
On September 30, 2010, Sanswire Corp. (the "Company") entered into agreements (the "Agreements") with Rocky Mountain Advisors Corp. ("Rocky"), Jonathan Leinwand ("Leinwand"), and Daniyel Erdberg ("Erdberg") (collectively, the "Shareholders"), cancelling the conversion agreements (the "Conversion Agreements") previously entered into on May 5, 2009, with each of the Shareholders.
The Company and the Shareholders have agreed to cancel the Conversion Agreements and reinstate the past wages or fees of $185,387, $319,118 and $121,487 (collectively, the "Wages") owed to Rocky, Leinwand and Erdberg, respectively. In connection with the cancellation of the Conversion Agreements, the Shareholders have agreed to waive their rights to the 29,615 shares of Series E Preferred Stock, 50,978 shares of Series E Preferred Stock and 19,407 shares of Series E Preferred Stock (collectively, the "Shares") deliverable to Rocky, Leinwand and Erdberg, respectively, allowing the Company to cancel the Shares. As a result of the cancellation, the Company has cancelled the Shares and agreed to reinstate the Wages as a debt on the books of the Company.
As of the date hereof, the Company is obligated on the Wages. The Wages are a debt obligation arising other than in the ordinary course of business which constitute a direct financial obligation of the Company.
The foregoing information is a summary of each of the agreements involved in the transactions described above, is not complete, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of those agreements, each of which is attached an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K. Readers should review those agreements for a complete understanding of the terms and conditions associated with this transaction.
ITEM 9.01 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS
Exhibit Number Description
10.1 Agreement, dated September 30, 2010, by and between Sanswire Corp.
and Rocky Mountain Advisors Corp.
10.2 Agreement, dated September 30, 2010, by and between Sanswire Corp.
and Jonathan Leinwand
10.3 Agreement, dated September 30, 2010, by and between Sanswire Corp.
and Daniyel Erdberg
BB, I noticed the flash of two running lights and think, just maybe, it might be a PADDS recovery system in the bottom of the second cell?
New 5 Segment video:
http://www.tao-group.de/filme/tec-news_07102010.wmv
Thanks for the heads up. Would like to see a video to go along with the picture just to compare flight characteristics between tests.
When was the last time we got this many updates in close succession? Let's see if their counterparts on this side of the pond can give us an official update soon.
It sounds like it's Tammy. Great find Coastie.
It looks like those U of Stuttgart folks are still busy working on SD 23 with props to the U.S. PR
http://www.tao-group.de/en_tec-news.html
Our CEO dated the escrow 8-k on 9/22 which was the day after the 9/21 holdings disclosures. Taking the latest 8-k referencing the old revenue recognition as well.....this package seems to have been in the works for the last week IMHO.
5 Segment Skydragon
http://www.tao-group.de/en_tec-news.html
The dates (so far) are as follows:
Show Cause Response Deadline 09/07/2010
Pretrial Conference 09/20/2010 at 03:30 PM
Calendar Call 10/06/2010 at 04:00 PM
Jury Trial 10/12/2010 at 09:00 AM
Maybe this is their hangar?
http://www.tao-group.de/helion.html
My source was the PACER docs. EOM
That's because Nosy did not post all the info:
The SEC is seeking the following:
1) Permanent injunction against Globetel against future violations. The SEC will need to convince the court that there is likelihood of future violations if GTEL is allowed to operate as a going concern.
2) Disgorgement and pre-judgement interest based on $1,553,962.21 in unregistered stock sales
3) Third-tier penalty as discussed by Nosy
At least we now have a basis for settlement discussions.
Kind of goes along with this older award to Eastcor.
The Air Force is awarding a Broad Agency Announcement, cost plus fixed fee contract to EastCor Engineering, Easton, Md. for a maximum $5,703,024. This objective of this contract is to design, build, test and deliver state-of- the-art Unattended Ground Sensors. At this time, $160,000 has been obligated. AFRL/RIKF, Rome N.Y. is the contracting activity (FA8750-09-C-0021).
*Small Business
http://www.defenselink.mil/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=3927
SKYSAT SALE - is this the ship from Palmdale?
Form 8-K for SANSWIRE CORP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27-Apr-2010
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Financial Statements and Exhibits
ITEM 1.01 ENTRY INTO A MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT
On April 20, 2010, Sanswire Corporation (the "Company") and Global Telesat Corp. ("GTC") entered into an agreement (the "Agreement") whereby GTC purchased a 50% interest in the Company's existing SkySat Mid Altitude, Lighter than Air (LTA), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) serial number 0001 (the "Airship"). The Company is required to utilize the Purchase Price to complete the requisite development work so that the Airship may be tested and demonstrated to potential customers.
The Company has agreed immediately to deliver the current Airship to a destination and facility designated by GTC.
Within three days of inspection of the Airship after delivery to the designated facility, GTC is required to pay 1/5th of the purchase price with additional payments of an equal amount each at 30-day intervals.
The Company has granted to GTC, upon the payment in full of the Purchase Price, a first lien and security interest in the Airship and all remedies of a secured creditor under the Uniform Commercial Code.
The Company granted GTC the option to acquire the remaining 50% of the Airship for an amount equal to 3 times the amount paid for the initial 50% interest (the "Option Price"). Upon exercising such option, GTC will be required to pay 1/3 of the option price within ten business days and two additional payments 1/3 each at 30-day intervals.
The foregoing information is a summary of the agreement involved in the transaction described above, is not complete, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the agreement, which is attached an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K. Readers should review the agreement for a complete understanding of the terms and conditions associated with this transaction.
ORDERED that
1) Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Sanctions [DE 166] is DENIED.
2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against GlobeTel Communications Corp., Joseph
J. Monterosso and Luis E. Vargas [DE 177] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 30th day of March, 2010.