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.
Mr. Big - rigid structure is not a requirement to be categorized as an airship. Airship is synonomous with dirigible -- both terms mean lighter than air craft capable of being steered/controlled.
Many people make this mistake, i.e. airships & dirigibles = rigids, non-rigid = blimps. But they are all airships.
I believe the Bullet 580 is intended to have directional thrusters of a sort, thus it is correct (in theory) to call it an airship.
I believe it will fail miserably....thus, balloon may be correct after all. Should be interesting to watch!
Checking back in. Interested to know of any contracts are being discussed/considered as part of recent demonstrations. Any news?
Checking back in with the board. Exciting things on the horizon from where I sit -- taking some time to develop SA before posting any opinions.
Thanks, Nil.
You should read more about Steve Jobs and how he got where he did, as well the roller coaster ride Apple experienced due to his immature management style. Apple has been (and still is) the subject of big lawsuits, but for different reasons.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/aug/23settlement.html
For the record, I think Steve Jobs is brilliant.
Bottom line - my points were about vision and the fact that antibodies emerge when something disruptive appears.
Please forgive if this has already been posted.
Regards
Sky
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Opportunities/FedBizView.aspx?id=PMA-262LTARFI
"The company uses this board to disseminate information to shareholders, information that often turns out "not" to be true."
That's why I don't believe everything I read here. I consider company press releases/website to be the source of communication to investors. What Bleckman may have said about S2 didn't make sense to me because the company never touted it as strat capable.
Bleckman has never answered my emails. I may try again soon.
Insofar as "high altitude" is concerned, marketing appears to be aligning to the language/phrasing used in military needs statements. Definitions vary, however, high altitude in the geostationary LTA sense is considered to be 60-70kft - targeting the "sweet spot" for favorable winds.
IMO, someone at Sanswire-TAO has done their homework.
Ditto.
Most were hot to the market when General Jumper was pushing Air Force to achieve persistent near-space capability.
I met some of the owners/managers of the companies and understood some of the political support they enjoyed at that time - most of which appears to have dried up over the last few years.
Due to escalated fuel costs, I remain hopeful that Congressional interest will pick back up. I would like see some of the more promising candidates receive R&D funding, Sanswire included.
Sky
The email you refer to is from WilliamFl, not Bleckman.
However, I believe William was faithful relaying Bleckman's words.
After review of several board discussions I was involved with, I conclude that Bleckeman prob thought the platform could go to 65kft. Why, I don't know. I can only conclude that he was still feeling the effects Vern's Kool-Aid in OCT 2006.
S2 performance discussion/challengers:
67071
87832
87939
87840
87984
87985
87988
87996
88000
Great question.
I'll be interested to read his reply.
"Can todays unmanned blimps do the same thing as a Strat. for a fraction of the cost?"
Yes and no.
5000 feet and below, conventional blimps are the low-risk way to go. Manned or unmanned, they are still cheaper to operate on a per hour basis than UAV's capable of the carrying the same high quality sensors. Hard to imagine a new ship beating thes guys on their own turf, unless it is very, very simple.
You start getting higher than that and winds impede the ability for LTA of any size to reliably station keep....until you get to ~60kft where the winds diminish.
Stratospheric altitudes offer superior coverage and line of sight comm capability...it is the holy grail of persistant surveillance/dwell capability, and potential gold mine for the first company that delivers.
Again - strat balloons have offered heavy lift (measured in tons) to strat altitudes for 50+ years...still a potentially viable competitor in this arena. They are cheap, expendable, and well understood...which may explain the steerable parachute mission equipment return system featured on the new website.
SkyVision
Risk - Would you mind sharing which unmanned untethered LTA platform is in Baghdad. Not trying to be confrontational...just interested to know since I'm in a different line of work these days.
TIA
Sky
Here's what is flying...
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN6O43930320080624
Yes -P791 is impressive - but the technology is poles apart from that required to get to the edge of space.
Question - what did LH deliver with the millions they received for HAA R&D? Wasn't the figure something like $300M?
Cole,
You lose credibility when you use equally (arguably less) unproven technology. I recall the Ascender demonstrator being a total failure - leaky and unmanageable outside the hangar. A totally forgettable science project.
Oh - I just got it....you're being facetious - that it is truly humorous.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Sky
Not sure if this has already been posted.
Sky
http://www.defensesystems.com/
http://www.defensesystems.com/issues/3_3/features/1469-1.html
Well stated.
I was merely posting the article for the benefit of the board.
$20M 'fence' scrapped for not catching enough illegals
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/23/border.fence.ap/index.html
I doubt "U.S. company" was the criteria...
since this application is arguably more important...and guess who won...
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7878
Can someone please send me the link to pictures of the actual Blackwater airship? Somone posted it a while back, but I can't find it now. Has anyone heard that it was damaged/lost?
TIA
Skyvision
I don't know the answer to that, Nil. Sorry for the late reply.
I'm thinking they might diffuse so quickly that they might not be visible very long...but that's just speculation. SR-71 archives might hold the answer.
"Do contrails in the stratosphere last longer (visually) than contrails which are lower in the atmosphere, and if so, why?"
See Post #97958
I can't be sure he even exists.
If he takes his job seriously, then he'll encourage the CEO to issue a note to shareholders as to the disposition of assets.
We are entitled to know.
I think they have a new vehicle. S2 may be one of the current test elements.
When did they ever say that? Not saying they didn't, but I certainly was never led to believe that.
"Remember, they told us the S2A would have to go to 65,000 feet also."
I warned the board about the growing expectation of S2 going stratospheric. It's obvious that it can't go that high, and the company never claimed it could (from what I recall). The company could have prob done a better job of taming the expectation...as the best it could deliver is low to mid altitude operation. It was intended to be a stepping stone toward strat capablity.
Mide,
Rob has never responded to me (3 attempts).
I used my real name and referenced the number of shares I own.
What's the trick?
TIA,
Sky
Appears a "Lotte" more valuable with oil now over $100 a barrel and increased demand worldwide.
Much different story today than 10 years ago.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp
http://www.inflationdata.com/ftf/Articles/Oil_Inflation.asp
A company should always attend the trade show, regardless of business derived elsewhere.
Pot, this is Kettle, Over...
Nice spin, Cole.
As you have pointed out, the CJCS LOE process has rigor and supports joint capability development.
TW is Fleet specific and less stringent.
Can anyone tell us how many TW assessments have "accelerated delivery of Network Centric Warfare Capabilities to the Warfighter?"
You're right, Poke.
And since we do not know the itinerary, nearly everything posted in the last 24 hrs is pure speculation.
For those challenging the "up to 100 miles" range, recall that the Navy vision for networking includes aircraft, so this trial could be used to extend the comm path for tactical/ISR aircraft to other aircraft and ships.
Generally speaking, aircraft at 2000' should be capable of LOS comms ~60nm with U.S. Navy combatants. The Sans 51 at 2000' and properly positioned could enable another airborne platform to exchange tactical data to a ship 160nm away from altitudes as low as ~1000'. It could also link aircraft ~200nm apart from each other (with each a/c as low as 1000')
Of course, atmospherics (esp in a maritime environment) can significantly affect EM theoretical ranges, positively and negatively - something we deal with (or exploit) as encountered, regardless of system specification.
Sky
Your last post makes no sense to me - not making the connection to IFF...
Additionally, the SAAB product is an ESM package, not IFF, and makes more sense, but still not dead-center.
Sky
Right on, Nerd.
Cole - I do not agree with your logic. There are plenty of contracts that go to small companies....some with only 1 person!
That aside - Mig needs to keep quiet about contracts until they are publicly announced....because it could give a competitor who didn't win the contract grounds to protest.
So while he may think he's helping GTEM, he could in fact be hurting us even worse (provided he's right about a contract - which has never been the case so far as I can tell).
FWIW
Sky
The items you consider "paradigm shifting" are merely extrapolations of technologies that have also been "around for decades." You're right, though, they are paradigm shifting in that their high cost is making DoD and various security agencies to seek more affordable capability solutions.
Why do you think Navy and Air Force keep kicking the JUCAS can down the road?
Yes - improvement of video quality a must, but impressive nonetheless...esp when you consider how whisper quiet and efficient this capability package is. I envision it competing with traffic/news/police choppers in the near term.
I am very impressed by the contolled vertical descent into the wind and graceful recovery. Well executed!
I haven't read the thread referring to the motor(s) as the source of interference, yet...I was wondering why the video quality was poor.
Is the camera mounted close to the motor(s)? If so, the magnetic field of the motor my be affecting the camera's electronics, in which case shielding or simply relocation may correct.
Sailors on USN combatants typically wrap their video cameras with tin foil to shield them from radar, otherwise they don't last very long...and sometimes that's not even enough. I would often "hear" the chirp of various radars in my headset when flying around the battlegroup....some were so characteristic that I could ID the ship by class before seeing it.
This all brings fwd a very good design point - electronics can be highly susceptible to directed electromagnetic energy. Therefore, to ensure reliability, mission packages must be suitably shielded (esp military and HAA ones).
Ballonets are typically filled with air, not helium, to compensate for the expansion/contraction of helium as the ship climbs/descends, and to keep the ship trim fore/aft.
A fan(s) is used to maintain constant pressure within the envelope plus or minus a couple of psi difference with ambient pressure. This maintains the ships aerodynamic shape. Ordinarily, the large volume of the ship contains the helium.
I don't know if anyone has experimented with Hydrogen as the primary lifting gas, and then used helium as a trimming medium along a fore/aft containment system. Would, IMO, still require a free-air ballonet to obviate any complex over-pressure design requirements.
Since the ship is solar, I don't know what design innovations may have been applied to reduce or eliminate the need for electric ballonet fans. From what I could see, I do not believe the design is sophisticated enough to accomplish complex maneuver via ballast changes (nor is there a reason to IMO). Manuever is typically (and most easily) accomplished via airflow across the steering finst.
Hope this was info was useful.
Sky
Where have you seen photos from a HAA?