Childhood Notions Becoming Real -- Laser Weapons and Drones (UAVs)

Throughout my adult life I have been in countless "discussions" with friends and acquaintances about the need for defense spending. It is not atypical of my generation that there is an impulsive abhorrence of anything military, especially among graduates of elite private universities -- probably an intellectual hangover from the Vietnam War. Nevertheless, most of these friends with whom I disagree are respectful, in theory at least, of the military although they are oblivious of the threats that face us daily.

Well, yesterday, came the release of videos that should make us all confident in the value of spending to keep the nation safe. The Phalanx Weapon System is designed to shoot down unmanned aerial vehicles, and is an outgrowth of similar weapon demonstrations against static targets (e.g., mortars) and high-speed ordnance (e.g., mortar rounds). Other laser systems, including the Nautilus, can bring down short-range missiles, something especially of concern to the Israelis. And, Northrop Grumman has been developing a laser for ballistic missiles for over 20 years called Airborne Laser (ABL), mounted on a Boeing 747.



Watching lasers destroy enemy targets is almost like watching the future unfold before our eyes. Many of us children of the 60s watched Star Trek, Star Wars, and even the Jetsons, and no doubt developed mental images from these shows and movies. Today's lasers represent the fulfillment of some of these dreams.

NASA Cutbacks plus Buffoonery

Two recent headlines make this blogger more discouraged about the current Administration in Washington DC:

"Will potential NASA budget cuts affect Johnson Space Center?"

"NASA Administrator Charles Bolden wants to help Muslims feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering," in an interview given to Al Jazeera.

Your humble blogger predicted the former possibility last year, in previous posts here, here, and here. The Obama Administration was profligate in its spending on social programs, stimulus programs, subsidies to auto buyers, subsidies to mortgagees in over their head with their homes, and saving the jobs of state employee union workers across the nation. Yet, the NASA budget would be cut, in particular the manned spaceflight program, by several billion dollars; with the winding down of the shuttle program, this meant the loss of jobs and, equally important, spaceflight expertise, at Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston.

But I couldn't have predicted the buffoonery of the second press release. It is not in the charter of NASA to make Muslim citizens, or citizens of any other nation for that matter, feel good about themselves. The mission of NASA is space exploration, science, and research. If anyone should be inspired, it should be millions of American schoolchildren, not Muslim -- children who want to become the next generation of engineers and scientists, like those of the 1960s (like me), who were inspired by the Apollo program.

In his interview with Al Jazeera, Administator Bolden said that he was exhorted by none other than President Obama to send this message to the Muslim world. Sheesh. The words buffoon, doofus, dope, clueless, addle-brained, and moron, all come to mind.

And, to top it off, we learned in February this year that NASA's new mission is global warming, and soon to be launched will be a new satellite called the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, intended to provide global measurement and assessment of worldwide carbon output. Manned spaceflight is one of the most exciting and stimulating of ventures, and its funding is redirected to global warming!

Sigh. It might be too much to expect a traditional approach to NASA from this Adminstration. But, thankfully, the nation has elections every two years, and nothing would prevent manned space flight from re-emerging as a priority of a more sensible, and pro-American, Adminstration in the future.

66th Anniversary of D-Day -- Recalling the Cost of Freedom

On this celebration of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, I felt it important to recall the most extraordinary act that American servicemen undertook that day, the scaling of the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc. Translated, "pointe du hoc" means merely "Hook Point" but its significance is far more vast than the simple translation implies.

Pointe du Hoc was a towering cliff about 100 feet tall at its zenith and, more importantly, it overlooked both of the primary Amerian landings at Omaha and Utah Beaches. The Germans had built six casemates and housed a battery of 155 mm guns which would have the capability of wreaking havoc in both directions. It was essential that Pointe du Hoc be taken out of action as early as possible on D-Day.

The 2nd Rangers did just that. Amid withering fire, with Germans dropping grenades over the cliff edge, the Rangers scaled Pointe du Hoc and gained a strong position. Although they held down the German defenders, they suffered considerable losses for the next 24 hours from counterattacks until a breakthrough from the rear by the Army 116th Division.

Close your eyes, imagine their sheer bravery, and place yourself in their shoes. All hell breaking loose on the beaches, hostile Germans up above, and your duty is to climb up a rope ladder and go on the offensive. Individual stories of astounding acts abound; one I relish is that when the Germans began casting the grappling hooks over the side, some of the Rangers used their bayonets to make a stepladder up the cliff wall. No one gave up or hunkered down at the base waiting for relief or another route.

On the 40th anniversary of D-Day, President Ronald Reagan dedicated his country's address that days to the "Boys of Pointe du Hoc." The video is embedded below. If anyone believes that the price of freedom is not dear, and that peace can be maintained solely by diplomacy and speeches in the U.N., I ask you to listen to our former President's words, perhaps the most eloquent he spoke during his eight years in office.

Memorial Day 2010 -- "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. " - John 15:13

I've expounded my personal sentiments on Memorial Day in past year blogs. I'll be brief this year. My message is dedicated to all servicemen and women who have given their life for their country. We value their sacrifice while we grieve for the loss their lives mean to others.

The poignant photo above is of a grieving fiance at the gravesite of James Regan, who lost his life in Iraq in 2007. He was 26 years old, a recent graduate of Duke University, a top athlete and had been admitted to law school. Yet he decided instead to enlist in the Army Rangers.

So this post is also for James, his family and beloved friends, and all those who suffer loss this Memorial Day.

Penetrating the Defense Industry -- Tactics and Common Sense

Defense Connections' CEO, Tom Hernandez, has spent time during the past three months briefing and advising technology businesses from Australia and New Zealand. Firms from "down under" have tremendous technology, are quite entrepreneurial, and have much to offer to US national security. The following interview is excerpted from remarks by Tom at a briefing during the Security Summit in San Diego in March and meetings last week at the New Zealand embassy. The excerpts focus less on formula and process and more on common sense, wisdom, and cautions about pitfalls that are known mostly to industry veterans. These lessons apply equally to US small businesses.

Q: First, tell us something about your background and how you got to where you are today.

Hernandez: I started in this business 25 years ago as a project engineer working for a Northrop division in Kansas City, doing avionics. Since then, the first half of my career has been on the technical and program management side of the defense industry, and second half in marketing, business development, corporate development, and general management. It's a pretty standard progression in the industry for someone without a military background -- engineer, program manager, business developer, Vice President, corporate officer, business entrepreneur.

Along the way I had several roles that led to a very broad and diverse exposure to customers and prime contractors. These contacts are strong and vital to this day and many of the younger staff I knew early on are now division Presidents, corporate executives, and CEOs; ditto for my government customers. That is how I am able to deliver for my company's clients and partners. In addition, 25 years in any business provides one with a wealth of experience and common sense, which I gladly share with my clients and anyone who is willing to listen.

Q: So, tell us about the Australian and New Zealand businesses that you briefed.

Hernandez: Both countries have trade commissions that actively promote their technology businesses. Scientists and engineers from down under are very innovative and entrepreneurial and you might be surprised how many of them are getting American capital to carry forth their products here in the USA. One of the lesser-known stories is about a Western Australian software firm that was financed by a very prominent Southern California investor and team owner (sorry, can't divulge more details) and became a roaring suceess in the storage market; it has been sold twice and is now part of IBM. Today's burgeoning businesses from down under have a wide array of technologies, concentraing on cybersecurity, renewable technology, energy, and cross-domain sharing.

Q: What was the advice you provided them?

Hernandez: I broke out the discussion as follows:

1. Solve, don't sell Most small businesses make the mistake of thinking that they need to sell their products or technology to DOD. A message something like, "Here's what I have, how many do you want" is doomed to failure. They need to approach the problem from an orthogonal perspective, however. Don't sell what you have, solve the problems that the government is facing. Remember, most of the government's problems are mission focused; e.g., they might be buying software but what they want is intelligence analytics. Solve the government's problems while selling what you already have or the technologicial competency you possess.


2. Master the process, understand the culture, and know the lingo Commercial firms and international firms all struggle with the acronyms for which the DOD is famous. But there is more than just mastering the alphabet soup. A successful firm must not only know what COTS, TRL, and CRADA mean, they must understand why they are important to the business development process and how they fit. Cluelessness will only exasperate a customer.


3. Succinctness wins and demonstrations are essential Many firms come to the USA with great ideas, fantastic powerpoint slides, and smart technologists, but they don't know that DOD customers have short attention spans -- not because they all have ADD, but because they are immensely busy. A very productive meeting at a conference might last 10-15 minutes and include a laptop demonstration and a "rack and stack" of key performance indexes versus the current solution. Meaning, do your homework in advance and hone your message to be clear, succinct, and precise. Such is evidence of a prepared marketeer and it will ensure that an Army Colonel will remember you.


4. There is no "low hanging fruit" in the DOD I have heard more times than I can count, from potential clients, that they want me to focus only on the low hanging fruit. Let me say categorically -- there is no low hanging fruit in the US Government, especially the DOD. There is no DOD program manager musing at the end of a long day, "I have a million dollars to spend and nothing to spend it on" or "whatever will I do with my discretionary funding?" Every dollar of every budget is being tracked by 3-5 defense industry marketeers at minimum and I can guarantee that they will make a claim on this money before an outsider even knows it exists. I usually turn down work from potential clients who can't get past this shortsightedness. "Low hanging fruit" only exists in tropical paradises that are short of natives and in business executives' dreams.


5. Supplanting an incumbent is hard Even if your company's technology or solution is cheaper, faster, more powerful, more efficient, or sexier, it is extremely difficult to replace an incumbent contractor who is, in all likelihood, larger and better connected than you. Government customers do not usually want to assume the risk of a new solution. There are exceptions, of course, but as long as a program is adequately funded, your a priori assumption must be that a government program manager will not change horses without the passage of some time and some awfully good marketing on your part.


6. Prime contractors will not sell for you -- use a pincer movement to ensure success It's amazing how many small businesses make this mistake. Their solution or product is at a component level, so they focus their marketing activity on prime contractors. They sign two or more teaming agreements and figure the orders will be forthcoming soon. But they wonder why the phone doesn't ring. Even if their offering makes the system cheaper, faster, more powerful, more efficient, or sexier (see previous question above), there are a host of reasons why the prime will not want to move forward with your good idea. A successful small business will sell to the customer or user community themselves while also selling to the prime contractor who will integrate their product into a higher-level system. I call it the pincer movement. Yes, it can be tough getting the right access but when your prime contractor starts getting calls from his own customer, about you, then your prime will start to take you more seriously.

Q: Any final words of wisdom or advice?

Hernandez: Just one final point. Always assume you are one year from revenue; never assume it will happen any more quickly. The DOD is a great customer. The first order takes some time but the successful contractor is usually in for the long haul.

Warp Speed Will Kill You

Perish the thought ... we have now learned that warp speed, introduced to America courtesy of the Star Trek television series, can kill.

There are many problems inherent in considering space travel at or near the speed of light. Those of us with physics or aerospace backgrounds are very likely aware of the benefits and challenges; we know that as you travel near the speed of light, you age more slowly because of time relativity; also your body grows more massive (!) and other interesting effects that derive from Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Nonetheless, I think we all lived in a fantasy that someday, perhaps not in our lifetimes, that space travel at "warp speed" would be possible. Maybe our children or grandchildren would experience and know it.

That hope has been dashed, at least based on a recent study. Dr. William Edelstein, a physicist at Johns Hopkins, showed a video of Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise announcing to the crew, "Warp speed, Scotty" at a recent conference. Then he turned to the audience and announced, "they're all dead."

Why? There is very little friction in space -- that's why such extraordinary speeds are even considered possible -- because there are only a couple of atoms of hydrogen per cm2. But the analysis by Edelstein revealed that, given the speeds and materials we have today from which to make a ship, most of the hydrogen atoms would pass right through the ship walls, providing a lethal dose of radiation. At 99% of the speed of light, the irradation dose would be fatal in less than a single second; at 99.999% of the speed of light, lethality would occur in milliseconds and the ship electronics would get fried. Edelstein also concluded that the radiation pressures are so considerable at warp speeds that there are no materials yet known to man that would shield the crew inside a ship.

Drat! Next thing you know, another hallowed adage will be disproven, "Beam me up, Scotty."

Point to consider: given this limitation, is it possible for other civilizations to have visited earth in the past?

Democratic Social Agendas or NASA?

About six months ago, I predicted in this blog that the nation's healthcare debate, focused on government funding of healthcare, would have other unforseen effects -- meaning, a validation of the "law of unintended consequences." We are seeing some of these happen right in front of our eyes.

My concern centered around the fact that once the Federal Government made healthcare an entitlement, it would take top priority versus most other discretionary budget items. Defense, of course, would probably be exempted. But NASA would not.

The President's budget reflected exactly this concern. NASA's budget was slated to increase slightly but missing was continued funding for the Constellation program for manned spaceflight including future Moon and Marsn missions. It needed only several billion per year, but what with $800 billion for Congressional pork (otherwise known as "the stimulus") and $1 trillion over 10 years slated for healthcare, the squeeze would have to come from somewhere. And the social welfare budgeteers in the White House lined out Constellation.

Well, the Congress and the NASA constituencies are fighting back. Recent press releases announce that the President's "NASA Plan Falls Flat in Congress" (Aviation Week); one commentator expressed astonishment at the Administration's "faith-based belief" that the commerical marketplace would solve the problem of manned space flight. [I commented recently on this possibility, but only wistfully; not once have I believed that space would ever be economical as a marketplace.]

Bravo to the Congress and to the industry for standing up to the Administration. Nothing makes America stand taller in the eyes of the world than when we achieve another tremendous milestone in space.

Consider the past extraordinary accomplishments of our nation: first man on the Moon, the Space Shuttle, GPS satellites, the Hubble Space Telescope, and more. Then consider the space accomplishments of defense and intelligence, courtesy of the DOD, the NRO and other agencies -- you might not know of them except in the tell-all books published in the past, but they are extraordinary, and they contributed mightily to our nation's defense and our technology.

Do we really want to give up this leadership, or relinquish it to the Chinese?

I thought not.

"The Price of Peace"

Some observations that are chilling to the careful reader come from the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS has a new program, called FutureTECH, which is meant to propel technology and product innovations along the development cycle, from concept and the laboratory to the marketplace.

But the technology list includes almost exclusively technologies meant to defeat IEDs (improvised explosive devices, the bombs that were so murderous to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) and provide defense against suicide bombers. Does this mean that DHS is concerned about terrorism within the homeland, of the type currently happening in Baghdad?

Rest assured that there are solutions already available for many of these challenges. The DOD has invested many billions in counter-IED technologies since 9-11, through programs from organizations like the JIEDDO (Joint IED Defeat Organization) and the TWSG (Technical Support Working Group). Some of these solutions involved concepts such as:

- Persistent surveillance, the continuous monitoring of risky areas from the air using UAVs (unmanned air vehicles);
- Remote detection and defusing of IEDs using small, smart robots, most prominently those manufactured by iRobot and Foster-Wheeler;
- Communications solutions allowing interconnectivity between the military, local law enforcement, first responders, and state officials;
- Standoff detection of explosives or their trigger mechanisms from the air or a vehicle

Also, and perhaps not surprisingly, the Israelis have the leading technology regarding bomb detection. After the bloody and infuriating rash of suicide bomber incidents earlier this decade, a focus on technology and process have basically brought these incidents to a halt. No doubt that the nation can liberally borrow from these solutions, or procure them directly from Israeli companies.

But the big concern is that our nation's officials are concerned enough about this violence being inflicted on the homeland. On our highways, in our cities, in our shopping malls.

Yes, this means business opportunities for entrepreneurs with novel solutions, hardware and software. But it is also a sobering recognition of the reality of 21st century America.

As General George Marshall, America's distinguished military leader throughout World War II said, "the price of peace is eternal vigilance."

Innovation in Space

I continue to be astonished at the continuing transformation of the space industry by those who do not come from the established companies.

First, some background. The USA's space shuttle program is now over 30 years old and is getting somewhat long in the tooth. Americans continue to be mesmerized by Shuttle launches and landings yet we should know that the Shuttle technology dates back to the 1970s and the cost per payload -- whether the the cargo is human or technical -- is $450 million per launch. In addition, the shuttle fleet is aging and this poses risk to shuttle personnel and, were another disaster to occur, to NASA's manned spaceflight program.

But a bold and aggressive space entrepreneur, SpaceX's Elon Musk, is challenging the status quo. SpaceX claims to be able to provide a human shuttle service -- basically a space taxi -- from earth to the space station for $20 million per seat. SpaceX might well be the first company to take a major step toward a longtime dream of the aerospace community, the commercialization of space.

Will it work? Time will tell. But what is admirable about SpaceX is the founder's boldness, brashness, and willingness to risk. It is this trait which makes for America's greatness in aerospace and provides for its worldwide leadership.

DARPA -- Better Than Nationalized Healthcare

I couldn't resist the opportunity to blog about another very exciting, incredibly cool project that DARPA has begun. But first, a clarification to readers who are unfamiliar with the scope of DARPA projects.

Most know that DARPA is the Pentagon's research arm, established over 50 years ago, looking at pure research with a long-term horizon of 10 years. Why was DARPA established? Because while the service branches (Army, Navy, Air Force) have their own research directorates, the plain fact is that the service branches do not have the attention span for supporting technologies that don't have a relatively quick payback; also, that the R&D budgets are routinely cut to fund "guns and butter" budget shortfalls. DARPA is independent, answers to no single service branch, and delves into all technologies.

I remember being especially fascinated, about 10 years ago, when someone in the satellite community (could have been Air Force or an intel agency like the NRO) observed that "wouldn't it be nice if we could extend the life of satellites by having a filling station in the sky." Crazy idea, of course. But DARPA went out and competed it! A couple of years and $75 million later, a number of contractors deployed experimental satellites and demonstrated the concept. Whether it goes to production is the responsibility of the Air Force, NRO, and other agencies. But DARPA was able to make it happen quickly. [For more information, do a Google search for "DARPA -- Orbital Express."]

But DARPA isn't just about military hardware. A recent article discussed what might be their most radical project ever in the biotechnology field -- a program called BioDesign which synthesizes molecules and includes in the DNA a switch that can be turned on and off externally, thus guaranteeing that the biotechnology can never be used against the USA. The organisms would also be fortified so as to provide for cell resistance to natural decay.

It sound scary but in fact the opposite is also true. This research could also be the source of DNA therapies that would extend human life, perhaps indefinitely, certainly for many years beyond three score and ten. In effect, DARPA is doing the research that the commercial biotechnology industry could not find the funding for. DNA therapies that thwart aging. Talk about the ultimate health care reform.

For further information, do a search on "Pentagon Looks to Breed Immortal ‘Synthetic Organisms'."

A Glimpse at the Future Regarding Cybersecurity

Today's Washington Post contains an article about collaboration between the National Security Agency (NSA) and Google ("Google to enlist NSA to help it ward off cyberattacks," February 4, 2010, Washington Post). This will no doubt horrify some people and cause others to scratch their heads and wonder, "why?"

But this kind of collaboration will be happening to a far greater degree in the future -- collaboration between cyberprotection agencies and major corporations, and ultimately even Internet Service Providers. Here's why.

Were an enemy to attack the US mainland and ravage a coastal US city, or private propertly, it is the responsibility and duty of the US military to respond -- to fight off the intruder and protect the private property. No one disputes this notion.

But cyber attacks on corporations are exactly analogous. A terrorist infiltration of Google's headquarters in San Jose, by men with weapons, is no different than a cyber infiltration of Google's networks by Russian or Chinese hackers with intentions to disrupt or destroy. Both can be equally injurious and deadly.

Cyber protection of the homeland will ultimately, and intimately, intertwine the activities of the DOD, businesses, and private individuals. How this is done is being debated endlessly behind closed doors within all service branches and at the NSA. But the time will come when it is routintely recognized that the US military (and I include NSA here) will be standing guard outside the virtual, e.g., cyber, community, just as they stand guard around our nation's borders.

M&A Prospects for 2010

During the past two weeks I have attended two M&A and VC events and have the following to report about prospects for buy-side and sell-side activity, especially as regards small business.

1) While the prospects for selling a company to a large business worsened during the 2008-09 economic collapse, the number of deals and the outflow of cash remained fairly steady during Q2 and Q3 2009. This is good news and ought to encourage buyers that the worst is behind us and the time to move is now, when bargains can still be found.

2) For Venture Capital investments, the worst is definitely behind us. Activity bottomed out during Q1 2009, at 50% of the peak during Q1 2008, and immediately grew during Q2 and Q3 last year. Although stil below the 2008 peak this trend reveals confidence in the investor community in prospective companies and the markets they serve.

3) California (DefCon's backyard) provides the best hunting ground for new investment opportunities. During Q3 2009, depending on how you slice things, California startups received 54% of the VC dollars and 41% of the VC deals.

DefCon is working both financing and M&A deals with clients and expects to have some press releases regarding this activity fairly soon. Stay posted.

Good News and Bad News

Events in the past two weeks provide both good news and bad news regarding budget matters which are near and dear to DefCon's heart.

First, the good news. President Obama has asked for a record-high $708 billion in defense spending in 2011, plus an additional $33 billion for the war in Afghanistan, for a total of $741 billion. While the devil is in the details, there is no doubt the President believes that we live in a dangerous world and that our vigilance requires healthy defense and intelligence budgets. I know that many of my friends and colleagues are opposed to growing defense budgets; I caution them that I expect much of the growth to be focused on intelligence and intelligence systems, which are the most cost-effective way to protect Americans from the most vicious threats we face. It was the Bush Administration's huge investments in intel systems after 9-11 that have thwarted further terrorist incidents on American soil. These are the incidents you don't hear about because they never happened, because our preparedness or pre-emptive action thwarted them in infancy. We like the stories of heroic Westerners wrestling to the ground jerks like Richard Reid or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, but our investments in intelligenc thwart the incidents that never got this far.

Now, the bad news. President Obama appears likely to ax NASA's Constellation program, which was to return mankind to the moon by 2020. There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no newly-developed Ares V cargo rocket which would have become the workhorse for ferrying supplies, cargo and humans from earth to space.

The reason for the bad news? First and foremost, the administration has been hammered for its massive overspending in 2009 and is tightening its belt. It authorized $800 billion on "shovel-ready" projects, most of which was congressional pork, yet finds no room in the wallet for another $1-3 billion annually to underwrite NASA's moon effort. If the American people could vote on it, there is no doubt they would vote to fund space technology. Hands down.

The second reason is that the Obama Administration is still romantically involved with AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and wants NASA to concentrate on Earth Science projects, specifically monitoring climate change. The case for AGW continues to unravel and I expect that this forcing function will become less and less relevant as each budget cycle passes.

Budget proposals are just that -- proposals, not fixed in concrete. We'll see what the budget negotiations produce.