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: djane who wrote (3406)	3/16/1999 12:14:00 AM
From: djane	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

Medicine by Satellite [G* reference] wired.com by Joanna Glasner 3:00 a.m. 15.Mar.99.PST Starting with a few high-powered computers, 3-D modeling programs, and a NASA satellite, a group of researchers said it has developed a system for transmitting advanced medical technology to remote parts of the globe. Their experiment, Project Mission, uses a high-speed satellite connection to tap into imaging software used in treatments for cancer patients. The goal is that hospitals or clinics in remote places that can't afford the expensive imaging software will still be able to use the technology. The technology won't be widely available anytime soon. It will be a few years before global satellite networks designed for high-speed data connections get off the ground. But researchers working on the project -- which used a NASA satellite designed for high-speed data communication -- see potential for a lot of other applications. "The intent was really to start with a government satellite as an experiment, and then move on to commercially available vehicles," said David Yun, an engineering professor at University of Hawaii at Manoa and principal investigator for Project Mission. Yun is looking at ways that commercial satellite networks can run medical applications. In the meantime, a number of small hospitals and clinics have shown interest in the cancer-treatment technology, said Seong Mun, a professor of radiology at Georgetown University who also worked on Project Mission. Much of the interest was financial. "Cancer-treatment planning requires lots of computer computation, and the kinds of computers necessary to do this tend to be expensive," Mun said. Even if clinics can afford the programs and equipment, they might not be able to find people with the expertise to keep the applications running. To explain how the system works, researchers created an online demonstration that shows how a two-dimensional scanned image is processed through 3-D imaging software to plan a treatment for a prostate-cancer patient. In their tests, researchers used satellites to beam images between medical and computing centers in Hawaii, Washington, DC, and Ohio. Using technology to connect advanced medical centers with remote hospitals and clinics isn't anything new. Several new telemedicine applications have picked up steam in the past decade as hospitals turn to videoconferencing and Net technologies to trade advice and treatment information. The use of satellite technology, however, opens up some new possibilities, especially in remote areas that don't have access to high-speed wires for bandwidth-sucking applications like 3-D imaging. Project Mission, funded mostly by the US Department of Defense and NASA, got a head start in satellite-communications research by getting permission from NASA to use its Advanced Communication Technology Satellite. NASA launched ACTS in 1993, planning to use the satellite to test advanced communication technologies. But according to Yun, ACTS doesn't have enough fuel to keep it in orbit for more than another few years. So scientists will take the results of the Project Mission research and find a way to apply them to satellite networks launched by commercial consortiums like Globalstar and Iridium. The satellite networks that will be in operation over the next couple of years probably won't be powerful enough to handle high-speed data connections, Yun said. But the satellites might be used in medical applications where a super fast exchange of information isn't essential. More possibilities will open up in 2003, when the Teledesic consortium launches a constellation of satellites designed for high-speed data. Other players are also looking at the results of the experiment. Yun said the Department of Defense -- the project's biggest contributor -- is particularly interested in technology for relaying sophisticated 3-D imaging programs through satellite networks. The military's interest in such applications was piqued after the Gulf War, when it saw ways that sophisticated satellite applications could play a role in improving technology for intercepting enemy missiles, Yun said. Project Mission researchers are also looking at commercial applications in the medical field. Besides cancer-treatment applications, Yun sees the possibility of taking a range of established telemedicine procedures, like teleconferencing and remote diagnosis software, and using satellite connections to bring the technology to remote parts of the world. Copyright © 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved.

To: djane who wrote (3406)	3/16/1999 12:57:00 AM
From: Steven Rachbach	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

I want to take a shot at the transpost from the Yahoo board about the market discounting two factors when valuing LOR and GSTRF. The poster states that the chance of getting 32 sats up with no failures is 65% (given a 90% per launch success rate) and so there is a discount factor of about .65 currently built into the stock price. Further, he/she states that there is also a .50 discount factor in regards to finding "enough phone subscribers" by the end of 1999. The total discount factor is then .33 (.65 X .5) and so IF the constellation is intact and IF "subscribers are found", the calculated year end Loral share price should be about $55 ($18.5 X (1/.33). Concerning the probability of achieving a functioning constellation, much greater minds than mine have weighed in on this subject. The professorial Ajit C on the AOL thread has calculated a probability of a well over 90% chance that there will be a functioning constellation by fall. With the robust backup plan in place, it sure seems they could successfully launch enough birds. I don't think it's much of a problem even with a 4-spot failure. To paraphrase Maurice's observations: these little birds are cheap and the opportunity cost of not having a functioning system is huge - so keep making 'em and shooting 'em - enough birds are bound to stick in orbit. Altogether, I never cared much for Readware's "show me the satellites" discount pricing model for LOR and GSTRF. I do believe that the Yahoo poster was correct in placing a large discount on "show me the customers." IRID's problems attracting customers are weighing heavily on LOR/GSTRF. However, thankfully, GSTRF is not IRID and should easily surpass the earlybird. After GSTRF shows the Street the customers, it will also have to show it the money. Thankfully, the single-digit cost per minute to GSTRF allows for the discounting of planned rates that IRID cannot afford. Unfortunately, the 9+ month Zenit delay has allowed other wireless companies the opportunity to grab customers G* might have gotten and build out new systems. So, how are GSTRF/LOR currently valued? Is it"fair"? Well, not if you consider some of the Internet stocks -- what is their discounting mechanism -- maybe that there is only a 99% chance that every man, woman and child in the world will use their services and products. I think currently, the launches are one of the lesser discounting factors. It seems that the China political situation is weighing down the stock. Every day for the past couple of weeks looking at the LOR option activity, there seems to be a battle between bulls and bears who have heavily bet on their respective sides of the near and intermediate term option tables. Certainly, we must ascertain what G's customer base will be -- if we hit the "targets" by the end of 1999, won't there be a 50% discount factor applied then for growth in the number of customers by the end of 2000? Also, what will be the profit margin 1, 2 or 4 years from now with intense competition from multiple wired and wireless telecos? Finally, what will Loral and G look like in 6 months or 2 years? Independent? Division of a giant teleco? I sometimes wish the market was a perfect discounting mechanism -- but it is definitely not. At least that's my opinion. Regards, Steve Rachbach

To: djane who wrote (3406)	3/16/1999 12:00:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 29987

More analysis of G/L discount factors/targets (via g* yahoo thread) Top > Business and Finance > Stocks > Services > Communications Services > GSTRF (Globalstar Telecommun.) Discounts: I'm surprised at the response. by: AR2BW (50/M/Orlando, FL) 4937 of 4939 Thank you all for your interest for what was strictly a mind experiment on my part to attempt to understand what is going on in our investment. Some comments on the several points brought up by ya'll: 1. The .9 launch success probability/launch and the .5 discount numbers in the model are pure guesses (perhaps somewhat educated but you can guess which end of the horse they came out of) on my part so if you have other ideas, just plug your own in and recalculate the discount. I was more interested in the algorithm mind game myself. 2. The notation I used ((.9)^4) is shorthand for raising a number to a power so this = .9.9.9.9 = .65. Probabililites for independent events multiply to get the joint probability of the end event (4 successful launches in this case). Again if you think the single probability is higher (i.e. .95 or more) have at it and recalculate the joint number (.95^4 = .81). 3. The probability that we will have a full satellite set up by the fall is higher than this (> 90%) because LOR will continue to launch satellites even if a failure occurs within the next four launches through July 99 (I'm guessing at about 35% chance of one failure) but can recover nicely in August with only a month delay. Two failures by year end is a remote (small, under 10%) chance in my mind. This risk reduces dramatically with each successful launch. 4. Long term targets? Don't make me out to be an oracle just because I can throw around math with some ease. My own guesses spring from work done by Readware and Valueman on the SI board with some twists of my own but 1,2,3,5,10, 20 year guesses are just that. I'm impressed that the GLP breakeven cost points are within reach (220,000 and 1 M subscribers) in 2000 or so and that almost every dime of revenue after that is pure bottom line profit. I actually am in agreement with Lehman ($90 target at year end) and think we might actually see something in the $85-$90 range at year end based on revenue streams. I'm projecting $125 at 2000 end. 185 end of 2001, 250 end of 2002, high 300's end for 2003. From there the crystal ball gets very cloudy with G2 but in my dreams I see high 100's to over $1000 in 10 years. (Uncorrected for splits). I warn you that I am, however, a complete novice at this investing business. (But trying to learn as quickly as I can from some good people like yourselves.) Your comments and insights are welcome to help me correct any misconceptions I might have. AR2BW Posted: Mar 16 1999 10:24AM EST as a reply to: Msg 4934 by Blue_Rocket1