I think I now understand the why of why L-3 is not mentioned by name, but is clearly mentioned by implication via the "MOU" inclusion in today's PR.
The "MOU" party is going to receive a "new" never tested before 5-segmented STS-111, and clearly that delivery for testing and demonstration appears to be in the US of A, site unknown for certain at this point.
Testing with 20 lb payloads to commence when that ship is delivered.
You can pack a whole passel of electronic gadgets on this ship with a limit of 20lbs. They get lighter everyday.
If I am a big corp. kinda partnering up loosie goosie thru a MOU with an "if come" company like SNSR, with a product I still have to test with them, and it fails? I don't want any connection of an endorsement implied.
Once it is a success....then I'll hang my hat all over them.
Until then...mums the word.
Makes sense to me.
m
PS..I do agree that GTC has a balls out endorsement and invested interest in something really happening here...and are still willing to pony up real bucks at a premium to see it through.
I guess I am curious what is really in this at 15K feet that intrigues them to keep pouring money into this venture.
Any thoughts as to the why they are persistent?
Before dawn there is darkness.
