Nowhere near comprehensive, but what follows is text of email to buddy in Cleveland. Could be worth relaying to any potential investors who tend to see things from a military perspective.
Link below has text summarizing what GlobeTel is doing. Even better its internal link to listen to CEO explain it.
Apart from Stratellite being able to provide everything from cell phone coverage to broadband internet cheaper and more reliably than anyone else (and to the "last mile" customers that the competition doesn't even try for), here are a few links to provide insight to use by Army and Air Force:
Air Force Space Command quotes Air Force Chief of Staff General John Jumper on why we need a presence in "near space" (i.e., 65,000 feet and up): http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-05g.html
More from Jumper: http://www.afa.org/magazine/April2005/0405headwinds.asp
Jumper cited the problem of exploiting “near space” as a perfect recent example of “bad effects-based thinking.”
By “near space,” he refers to the physical realm above 65,000 feet altitude (the highest point for powered aircraft flight) but below 984,000 feet (the lowest point for orbital spaceflight).
As Jumper sees it, the thinking of most pilots reaches a limit at 65,000 feet, while space operators care little about what happens below 984,000 feet. This kind of thinking leaves a vast “no man’s land,” between air and space, which remains unexploited, even though it could be used to great advantage for potentially little cost.The kind of vehicle needed for near-space operations is not pretty. “It looks like a big dirigible,” said Jumper. “It’s full of gas or something, and it’s hard to get off the ground.” Still, he went on, near-space vehicles can stay aloft for months and can carry high-demand communications and surveillance capabilities.
Still more from Jumper (and even more blunt. Gotta love this guy.) http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/events/050128presentations/General_Jumper_Presentation.pdf
excerpt from middle of page 3:
Now the concept of near space is an almost perfect example
of platformcentric thinking and why we haven't exploited this.
To guys like me who wear wings, we don't think of anything above
65,000 feet because there's not enough air molecules to make
motors run. Space guys don't think about it because it's below
300 kilometers which is about the lowest you can go and make
So what is involved is a no-man's land where if you think
about it the right way you can put lighter than air sort of
machines up there that can hover for months and months and give
you the persistence that you otherwise try to get with a fossil
fuel flying thing or an orbiting thing. With the orbiting thing,
if you're going to really be able to get coverage around the
[inaudible], you need to have about 40 or 50 of these satellites
in low orbit, and with the airborne thing you need to be able to
The reason we don't like this space between 65,000 feet and
300 kilometers is that it takes a large ungainly poopy bag sort
of thing that nobody likes to deal with on the ground, inflate
it, and get it up there to do its work. There's nothing sexy
So we tend to stick with our platformcentric thinking and
we've sort of abandoned that part. Well, we're going to unabandon
it and we're going to get ourselves in there. We're
going to use it for networking as substitutes for low orbiting
satellite constellations, use it to hook up, if we can, what the
Army and the Marines are trying to do, digitize themselves on the
ground, be able to do things like operationalize transformational
coms and deal with the most difficult problem we have with
transformational coms and that is getting all that information to
ships at sea and to people in foxholes. This is the way that
we'll be able to break that down. And it comes about because you
take this integration of what's flying, what's in orbit, and what
can be in near space and what's on the ground, and you put these
things together in self-forming, self-[inaudible] networks in
ways that everybody has a picture of what's going on.
Space Command's four-star General Lance Lord's statement to Senate Armed Services Committee: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=15798
This is a long one since it covers literally everything Space Command is doing, so here are two paragraphs from ~3/4 down:We are very excited about exploring capabilities in the area known as "Near Space" at an altitude between 65,000 to 325,000 feet. From our preliminary analysis, we believe there's substantial military utility in augmenting our current aerospace capabilities with fielded capabilities in Near Space. These Near Space platforms are not intended to replace air or space assets, but rather to help augment and integrate additional capabilities.We have already demonstrated military utility in expanding the range of Army radios used for contact between ground forces and to conduct Close Air Support operations. By using affordable platforms like weather balloons, blimps or air ships, we can help provide much needed persistence and direct support to our theater commanders and their joint warfighters.
Space Review's assessment of near space (some pro, some con): http://www.thespacereview.com/article/230/1
Al Jazeerah (maybe not happy about it?) reports that CSAF Gneral John Jumper says US Air Force is working with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop a stealthy aircraft without metal that could be equipped with special sensors and remain in the air for months at a time. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CCE21042-9632-4D8B-9A15-5CD8B5468C4F.htm
Good thing that after the prototype we're switching from aluminum to composite material for Stratellite's framework. You think maybe more than a coincidence? I don't suppose Huff could say anything about it if we were working with DARPA or anyone else in a big hangar in Nevada.