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 (3968)	4/19/1999 9:40:00 AM
From: Jeff Vayda	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 29987

All: Anyone planning to attend the Annual meeting? I am toying with the idea, more effort would be put into the effort if a number of poster are planning to attend. Jeff Vayda

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3968)	4/19/1999 9:55:00 PM
From: CommSatMan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29987

With apologies to all, I am a "techie," however I play the stockmarket as a passionate hobby. I do believe that the technology can drive the fundamentals, and historically has. I would like to make one last comment on fuel (and I promise I will shut up about it after that). By the way, if anybody wants to check my numbers (and please do because sometimes I make misteaks), you can get the equations in any orbital dynamics book and work thru the numbers. Fuel consumption is based on changing a velocity and maintaining a 3-axis stabilized satellite in LEO takes about 15 to 75 m/s per year. This equates to about 0.5 Kg of fuel. To change altitude from a typical drop off point to get acceleration into a plane takes about 3600 to 4000 m/s which equates to about 30 Kg of fuel. This obviously varies with the altitude, and I just did this for an example at 800 Km from about 375 Km. Typically, less than 10% of the propellant mass is used for attitude control. Moving on to the electronics, from what I have read about Iridium, I understand that they can program their computers, so software upgrades are very possible. Obviously they cannot change fundamentals that are hardware limited, like the number of tuners which ultimately limits capacity. However, while G* does not have the same limitations, they also have limitations in hardware which ultimately limits capacity. But my guess would be that what limits these systems in capacity more than anything else is the amount of spectrum they have allocated. I am sure that bandwidth drove a lot of design decisions for both systems. One other point, there are a lot of advantages to CDMA in terrestrial systems. Not all of these advantages can be realized when you take that system in to space. For example, power control in a terrestrial system is based on a few microseconds of time passing between the user and the base station, while in space this is in the tens of milliseconds. Response times and power control do impact capacity and that is one of the reasons I think the G* capacity values are overstated. Taking this to the next level, lower capacity means higher prices and while I do not think G* costs are as high as Iridium's, I am not as wildly optimistic about their ability to sell cheap minutes and make a profit as some. These are just my opinions and I welcome criticism and debate. CSM

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3968)	4/20/1999 1:31:00 AM
From: Oliver Schonrock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

* Data Rate * Hey Maurice I would have thought that in a TDMA system you could just temporarily lease two "time-slots" rather than one to double your bandwidth for data transmission (or for voice but it's not worth it). You know, the phone calls up the network and says, "give me two or three Time-Slot permits, I want to throw you a lot of data quickly". In a CDMA system the "Code" kind of spreads the info through the whole allocated spectrum as a kind of unintelligible noise, right?(except for the recipient of course). Can't we temporarily lease Two codes for 19.2K or 4 codes for 38.4K? It would just make more "noise" like we were two cell-phones at the same time, right? In my relatively" limited understanding that would just be a matter of software in the handset and the cell-site or G* gateway. Nothing to do with the bent pipe. Actually with normal PCs and normal landline modems you can do it now with much higher level software (like OSI level about 4 or so). Some is available from tucows.com I think. You just load it, get two land lines , connect two modems and voila 56K x2 !! Am I missing something? Oliver PS Just assume I don't mind if the network charges me for two phone calls for a double speed connection. Supply and Demand, right?