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: Maurice Winn who wrote (3954)	4/18/1999 2:58:00 PM
From: CommSatMan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29987

Hello people. I have been following this board for several months and your recent discussion on satellites and fuel as a limiting factor has finally prompted me to comment. First of all, Mr. A is absolutely correct when he states that it does not take much fuel to maintain orbit. In the case of both Iridium and Globalstar, fuel consumption during service will be on the order of 0.4 Kg per year. Getting to orbit from where you are dropped off or deorbiting takes much more fuel. For example, Iridium has announced to the community that they will deorbit their vehicles at the end of useful life. In order to do this, they must carry significant fuel reserves. My guess would be that they would have enough fuel for 50 or so years if they just used the fuel for orbit control. Typically when you build a spacecraft, you have a design life and a consumable life. I* has an announced design life of 5 years, G* 7 1/2. Both would carry about 50% margin in consumables. Consumables not only include fuel, but relate to the power generation and storage capabilities. IMO, the batteries, not the fuel, is what will determine how long one of these satellites last (assuming no infant mortality on the electronics). There are some significantly different factors associated with the batteries of both G* and I*. GEO satellites have different characteristics than LEO satellites and these systems have some differences that have never been tested. These batteries will be stressed because of the nature of the communication system. They will have long periods of no or little load followed by short periods of extremely heavy loads. When this is coupled with the orbital aspects of eclipse, the charge and discharge cycle will not be uniform. This adds to battery stress and IMO will shorten life. So, in summary, what I am suggesting is to not worry about the fuel, worry about the real problem - battery stress and lifetime. Suffice it to say, I think both systems are terrific from a technical standpoint, but I personally don't believe the numbers of customers either system claims. Space based systems are different than terrestrial systems and sometimes you can be talking apples and oranges, even when comparing the exact same functions, but I'll leave that discussion for later. Would not want to wear out my welcome before I even get started. In closing, I would like to say that I really enjoy the lively discussion, and I always learn something new.