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: Goodboy who wrote (4202)	4/26/1999 11:41:00 PM
From: Andmoreagain	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29987

Goodboy: You have been prescient thus far. Please - and I am not being facetious - tell us when you buy Globalstar (in real time, thank you!).

To: Goodboy who wrote (4202)	4/27/1999 12:09:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29987

Goodboy, thanks for an honest, thoughtful, and comprehensive reply. I personally take no joy in the obliteration of capital whether debt or equity, whether Iridium or any other company. It's just a damn shame that I* constellation can't be re-cycled in some manner. [without a shred of technical competency, I was hoping that our Mr. Schwartz could get Motorola's Mr. Galvin on the horn and "meld" their birds with our birds. I'm a hopeless win-win seeker, but must say I was afraid of exactly the answer you delivered, i.e., that I's design was so damned specific it could never be employed for any other purpose than that for which it was intended] Since LOR/G are being tarred with the fall-out from the I* disaster, must also agree that the only upside is to take advantage of the absurdly low market valuations and wait for the Street to figure out that the two are as different as night and day. Thanks again. Mike Doyle

To: Goodboy who wrote (4202)	4/27/1999 5:12:00 PM
From: Dragonfly	Respond to of 29987

Needless to say Goodboy's comments about Iridium sats not having necessary fuel to stay in orbit is sensless rumormongering and has no basis in fact. Can we really take someone seriously who actually takes the effort to waste time hating a stock? exchange2000.com To trust this guys rantings about technology is appropriate for a speculator, but not an investor participating in due diligence. Dragonfly

To: Goodboy who wrote (4202)	4/27/1999 11:37:00 PM
From: CommSatMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Goodboy, while the virtues of Iridium are not significant, I have to comment on the wrong information provided in your message. First of all, at the altitude Iridium orbits, the difference in drag between Iridium and Globalstar amounts to less fuel than can be measured. Secondly, as previously discussed on this thread, Iridium carries fuel to deorbit their satellites after useful life. This fuel margin is such that the vehicles will fail for other reasons long before they ever have a fuel problem. Thirdly, the Iridium satellites were designed with minimum fuel for station keeping because they are 3-axis stabilized with momentum wheels and torque rods. This is a typical fuel efficient LEO design. Next, the buses for Iridium were designed by Lockheed Martin and as a company, they have built and launched more satellites than other manufacturer. Lastly, Motorola has published that it expects 6 satellite failures per year. If you look at the history of satellite constellations, 10% is better than average performance. While I don't enjoy defending Iridium, I truly dislike bad information because it takes on the appearance of disinformation. Globalstar can stand on its own merits, providing bad data about Iridium doesn't help this thread. CSM