Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dragonfly who wrote (1461)	7/19/1998 9:06:00 AM
From: ccryder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

A few replacement G* satellites will be launched and will be in-orbit spares. A few more will be built and stored on the ground. The costs are in the present cost structure (all this from a sometimes faulty memory). That the spare philosophy between GSTRF and IRDIF are different are driven by the orbit and the relay path. For the GSTRF orbit, a satellite in the parking orbit can be moved to any operational orbit in a matter of days without much fuel expense. For the IRDIF orbits, a spare is in each of the obits because the expense of moving from one polar orbit to another takes time and more fuel than for the lower inclined GSTRF orbits. Also, the relay method IRDIF uses degrades more when a satellite is missing than in the GSTRF case. Thus the replacement in the IRDIF case has more time criticality than in the GSTRF case. I had wondered why Mr Adrenalin said there is a difference in the fuel used to move GSTRF satellites to their operational orbit vs the IRDIF satellites. Perhaps the time criticality is the biggest reason.