L. David Marquet

🚨 Announcing the New Implementation Plan for Strengthening America’s Defense Industrial Base 🚨 I’m honored to be an integral part of executing the Department of Defense’s (DoD) new National Defense Industrial Strategy Implementation Plan (NDIS-IP). Today, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy (OASD(IBP)) unveiled this critical plan, detailing the ongoing and future actions needed to modernize and secure our defense industrial base. This initiative outlines six cross-cutting programs designed to ensure a more resilient defense ecosystem. From collaboration across DoD components and Services to vital partnerships with industry, international allies, and stakeholders, this strategy underpins the effort required to reinforce our industrial base. 📈 The NDIS-IP addresses a unified commitment to strengthening industrial capacity, building resilience, and reducing risks across the board. This will involve: • Key partnerships with private industry, academia, and international allies, • New OTAs under the Defense Industrial Base Consortium (DIBC) for rapid research, including the recently announced request for white papers on “Critical Chemicals for Defense,” • Support from Congress as a cornerstone of sustainable security. For those interested, the unclassified NDIS-IP document is available here: NDIS-IP FY2025. https://lnkd.in/dUmSt7yd I’m inspired by the opportunity to help lead this strategic vision forward, ensuring our nation’s industrial base remains robust and capable. #NationalSecurity #IndustrialBase #DefenseStrategy #Innovation #DoD

2

Heads Up...DoD News related to Architect - Engineering (AE) Services! (1) FINAL RULE Effective 8/26/2024 - DFARS Case 2024-D019 Architect and Engineering Service Fees. This rule changes DFARS to implement Section 2881 of the FY24 NDAA to increase the limitation of the contract price (i.e., "fee") for A-E services for the preparation and delivery of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications from 6% of the project's estimated construction cost to 10%. It is applicable to Army, Navy, and Air Force projects (references in 10 U.S.C. 7540,8612, and 9540). The new 10% limit replaces the 6% fee limitation on contract modifications for work not initially included in the contract and redesign, and applies only to that portion of the contract (or modification) price attributable to the preparation of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications. If a contract or modification also includes other services, the part of the price attributable to the other services is not subject to the fee limitation. (Personally, I've been waiting since the early 1990's for this percentage to change (and yes, I've been doing this THAT long). This makes it easier for small AE businesses to participate in the Federal space. So, YEA!) Permalink: https://lnkd.in/g7vF95R6 (2) PROPOSED RULE Comments due 9/27/2024 -- DFARS Case 2023-D007 Task Order and Delivery Order Contracting for Architectural and Engineering Services. This rules proposes a corresponding change to DFARS Subpart 216.5, Indefinite-Delivery Contracts, to require DoD Contracting Officers (KOs) to use qualification-based selections when awarding task orders and delivery orders for AE services that was previously implemented procedurally under FAR Subparts 16.500, 16.505, and 36.6 procedures in 2005 under the final rule for FAR Case 2004-001 Improvements in Contracting for Architect-Engineer Services. This proposed rule adds DoD-specific statutory guidance (10 U.S.C. 3406(h)(2)) to DFARS directing KOs not to request additional info regarding qualifications unless necessary to determine qualifications for a particular task order or delivery order under a multiple-award contract. There should be little to no impact from this proposed rule since there are no procedural changes, new clauses or provisions, and no new applicability in terms of thresholds or types of contracts. Permalink: https://lnkd.in/gwh2_38J

5

Mission command is the only topic that the CSO has written about in two consecutive CSO Notes — namely C-notes 6&7. It is a concept deeply embedded (if not enshrined) in all four of the key documents of the United States Space Force. Here is a quote from the CSO’s Planning Guidance: “Therefore, I direct a default command style of ‘command by negation’ where subordinate echelons are expected to default to action except where a higher echelon has specifically reserved authority.” Or as I’ve heard it from other influential #ussf leaders, “Guardians don’t do mother-may-I. Instead we assume green light unless someone says something specific is a red light.” Exercising mission command will take tremendous courage. In fact we may have to leverage our character and commitment to muster that courage. And it will be easier to muster that courage if Guardians are connected to each other.

19

6 Comments

DoD rule-makers have been busy with proposed rules for DFARS. Those of you with a NAICS code that begins with 5416--management, scientific, and technical consulting services NAICS--will want to pay attention to this first rule in particular... Preventing Conflicts of Interest for Certain Consulting Services (DFARS Case 2024-D007) - Proposes amending DFARS to-- ▶ implement Section 812 of the FY24 NDAA which prohibits DoD from awarding contracts assigned a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code beginning with 5416 to offerors who hold contracts that involve consulting services with certain covered foreign entities. ▶ add a new solicitation provision in which an offeror certifies whether the offeror, its subsidiaries, or affiliates hold a contract for consulting services with one or more covered foreign entities and whether the offeror maintains a conflict-of-interest mitigation plan that meets certain requirements. ▶ requires that if the offeror, its subsidiaries, or affiliates hold such a contract and the offeror is selected for award, the offeror may submit its existing conflict-of-interest mitigation plan, which will be incorporated into a contract resulting from the solicitation. The provision is prescribed for use in solicitations assigned a NAICS code beginning with 5416 that involve consulting services. (https://lnkd.in/gCdMD7D4) DoD Cost or Pricing Data Reporting Requirements (DFARS Case 2022-D004) - Would amend DFARS to-- ▶ require offerors to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data upon contracting officer request. ▶  establish a $2 million threshold for the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data statute requirements with respect to contract modifications, subcontracts, and modifications to subcontracts.  ▶ require that contract modifications to reflect the revised threshold be executed “as soon as practicable.” The proposed rule implements these changes via several proposed new clauses. (https://lnkd.in/gfNcW2rR) Public Access to Results of Federally Funded Research (DFARS Case 2020-D028) - Proposes two new clauses that require contractors with contracts that include fundamental research to develop and maintain a data management plan and to submit final peer-reviewed manuscripts to the Defense Technical Information Center’s publicly accessible repository. (https://lnkd.in/g7bDcij6) Comments for all proposed rules are due on 11/25/2024. Instructions to comment are found at each permalink.

16

So What If It WAS Shrapnel? July 26, 2024 by Mike Ford I’m getting tired of all the artificial sturm und drang about whether President Trump was actually struck by a bullet, or glass shards created by that bullet passing through the teleprompter. Let’s get this straight, right up front. It. Does. Not. Matter. I’m speaking to you, leftist press, and you DNC shills, and especially you, FBI Director Wray. While testifying in front of Congress regarding the ineptness of the USSS, Wray stated:”With respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear.” My purpose here, is to finally put to rest any distinction between being hit by a bullet, or being sliced by a piece of shrapnel. The left is currently promoting the idea that President Trump was struck by glass shards from the teleprompter. They are doing so in an obvious effort to diminish the seriousness of the assassination attempt. To clear the air, let’s have a look at how the Department of Defense looks at this issue. The U.S Army lays out the circumstances for a Soldier to be awarded a Purple Heart on its website. Here are some of the criteria in question, emphasis mine: “Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows: Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions Mild traumatic brain injury or concussive severe enough to cause either loss of consciousness or restriction from full duty due to persistent signs, symptoms, or clinical finding, or impaired brain functions for a period greater than 48 hours from the time of the concussive incident. Perforated Eardrum (ruptured tympanic membrane)” Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I am not implying Trump is qualified for and should receive a Purple Heart. The point I am trying to make, is that DOD draws NO DINSTINCTION between an injury caused by a bullet or one caused by any other material turned into a projectile via enemy action. So, instead of trying to minimize the former President’s injury, perhaps we should be focusing on how a shooter was able to get close enough to get a shot off at the Republican nominee and likely next President of these United States. Substack: American Free News Network Substack Truth Social: @AFNN_USA Facebook: https://lnkd.in/eD9bjApf Telegram: https://lnkd.in/eyE8Ytuy Twitter: https://lnkd.in/eU3-ak2w GETTR: https://lnkd.in/eAQ3i6HN CloutHub: @AFNN_USA

12

2 Comments

🔄 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗢𝗗𝗔 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗽: 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗗𝘆𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 The OODA Loop is a powerful decision-making framework developed by U.S. Air Force Colonel John Boyd. This iterative process—Observe, Orient, Decide, Act—helps teams and leaders respond effectively to rapidly changing environments. Here’s How It Works: 1️⃣ Observe: Gather all relevant information to understand the situation. 2️⃣ Orient: Analyze and interpret the information, considering biases and context. 3️⃣ Decide: Choose the best course of action based on insights. 4️⃣ Act: Implement decisions quickly and monitor outcomes. This cycle repeats, enabling continuous improvement and agility. Whether in business, leadership, or problem-solving, the OODA Loop helps you stay ahead. 👉 How do you approach decision-making in uncertain situations? Let’s share strategies! #RigFab #LeadershipFrameworks #OODA #Agility #ProblemSolving

1

Transubstantiation isn’t just for Catholics. It can also occur when 2 or more non-defense articles, combine to undergo a bureaucratic transubstantiation into defense articles controlled under ITAR. Here we have a 5.56 FMJ round with loose M27 links for the FN America, LLC M249 SAW and the same ammunition linked together. As the ammunition is standard FMJ without a steel penetrator like M855/M855A1, since March of 2020, it is no longer on the the United States Munitions List (USML), which means it is not intrinsically regulated under ITAR. However, that doesn't mean it can't be a defense article under ITAR. Category III of the USML lists “Ammunition preassembled into links or belts” and “Cartridge links and belts for fully automatic firearms and guns controlled in USML Categories I or II”. While “preassembled” linked ammo is explicitly controlled under #ITAR, the links are only controlled if they’re for “fully automatic firearms”. Therefore loose links for semi-automatic belt-fed #Guns, aren’t controlled under ITAR. Yet, if the links are for use in a machine-gun, they are controlled under ITAR. Owning a semi-auto belt-fed seems to be like putting a lawn mower engine in a Porsche, but that's just me. I would advise extreme caution to anyone exporting loose links under the more permissive Bureau of Industry and Security-U.S. Department of Commerce standards, to do their due diligence on the end user. If the end-user is #Government, #Military or #LawEnforcement, it's kinda hard to imagine they're using them for semi-auto belt-feds vs a private end-user with no access to machine-guns. As always, I’m not a #Lawyer & none of this is #LegalAdvice. But Ordnance & Energetics Consulting LLC can leverage years of practical experience in #Government #Compliance, to assist #StartUps, #VentureCapital & others to navigate ATF & DDTC regulations related to dealing, #Manufacturing, #Importing, or #Exporting; #Ordnance, #Explosives & #Firearms.

26

7 Comments

The lack of "consumability" of some information coming out of critial parts of the bureacracy is a critical issue for novice innovators. CSPAN and the white house media pages, DVIDS are your best friends when it comes to on the ground evidence. If it doesn't get picked up in War on the Rocks, your favorite 'podcast' - maybe people don't see or hear it!? Dr. Marina Theodotou, Michael Mullen, Alexis B., Michael Kanaan, James Appathurai, Colin kane, Mike Bloomberg Does our need/ effort to communicate end when the message gets posted? Raw: https://lnkd.in/gMFj-NF9 Key Quotes: Admiral Mullen, "The building (Pentagon) is very risk averse and the requirement is to move very rapidly, which is going to require a significant increase in the appetite for risk." "We’ve got to stop rewarding mediocrity. We need to accelerate speed, really put ourselves on the clock. Almost as if we were at war." "We need to align our mission to drive innovation very specifically and learn from the best, especially in addressing the lack of flexibility in funding." Alexis Bonnell "The number one thing our adversary wants is for us to be scared of our own technology. So coming back in was really a commitment to the idea of how do we reduce the fear and make it easier for people to innovate?" "Toil eats purpose faster than mission can replace it... without taking away all of the extra, it becomes very difficult to do something new or novel." "Time is a weapons platform. It's our most important weapons platform. But if we don't treat a minute as important as a missile, then we waste them and invest them in the wrong places." Michael Kanaan "Technology, no matter the type, is a human endeavor, and people are at the core of what we do." "The DoD doesn't have the luxury of looking at bonuses or corporate profit margins on a 10-K statement. The shareholders are capital currency often boils down to the narrative words and a mission well done." "As I often like to say, you can't hack the bureaucracy unless you understand the bureaucracy, and an educated workforce must be the ones to build an environment that supports the adoption of technology." "The most profound AI impacts will inevitably be...in the back office functions, at least in the short term...an area overlooked for its lack of glamor compared to warfighting applications." "The question is not whether we are risk averse. But rather, is that a euphemism for risk blind...what is lost because we haven't made the trade off."

27

11 Comments

Which Defense Innovation Programs do you feel have failed, and which have succeeded? I think this is a convoluted and difficult question to answer. My opinion and focus has always been tied to better funding resources to facilitate transition, and I think most programs have failed in doing so to the level that is often requested and necessary to have the impacts promised. That said. I do think the notion that all of these programs have "failed" is overly critical. The discourse on innovation within government and defense sectors often centers on the perceived failures. Common criticisms point to a lack of transformative outcomes within the short tenures of government leaders. However, such a view may overlook the essential nature of incremental innovations, which, while smaller in scale, cumulatively enhance operational effectiveness and foster a culture of innovation crucial for long-term transformative success. Fostering a successful innovation culture necessitates celebrating and rewarding small wins and recognizing their role in setting the stage for larger technological shifts. This approach should align more closely with realistic resourcing, clearer objectives, and a reassessment of what constitutes success, emphasizing continuous improvement and adaptation rather than sporadic leaps in technology. Such a strategy promotes sustainability in innovation efforts, avoiding the pitfalls of a 'quick fix' mentality and instead nurturing enduring progress, and preparing a large organization to move more swiftly when transformative innovations do come into play. For a longer conversation on the topic of Defense Innovation Program Success, check out my latest thoughts on Auxo https://lnkd.in/dVb27rDN Megan Haley

9

5 Comments

I have high confidence in Dr. Sulmeyer. One great enabling issue is training; I vote for starting with a Defense Cyber Institute (DCI like DLI). Sulmeyer looks to extend SOCOM model for CYBERCOM as lawmakers resurface cyber force idea By Anastasia Obis; 11 July 2024 If confirmed as the first-ever assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, Michael Sulmeyer said he would consider a “range of options” to address persistent cyber mission force readiness challenges, including applying some aspects of the U.S. Special Operations Command model to U.S. Cyber Command. https://lnkd.in/ec_e3zG3

55

27 Comments

Cataclysmic Polarity Shift : Is U.S. National Security Prepared For The Next Geomagnetic Pole Reversal (Air Command & Staff College / 2015) The Earth’s core is undergoing a dramatic change with geomagnetic field strength dropping by 40% over the last 400 years, and satellite observations showing the field weakening 10 times faster than previously calculated. Unlike the debate surrounding man-made climate change and global warming, polarity reversals are a proven natural phenomenon that have occurred hundreds of times in the Earth’s past, and will happen again in the future. The decrease in magnetic field strength would increase vulnerability to catastrophic space weather events and increase cosmic and solar radiation interaction with the atmosphere and surface, leading to infrastructure damages in the trillions of dollars, and the death of untold numbers of Americans. While geomagnetic polarity reversals receive little attention outside the geosciences, reversals have the capability of crippling the nation’s interconnected and interdependent infrastructures, posing a threat to national security extending far beyond those predicted by global warming and climate change.

5

2 Comments

Confirmation bias—the tendency to favor information that aligns with existing beliefs—can be a significant barrier to innovation in organizations. Leaders affected by this bias unconsciously seek evidence that supports their views, reinforcing existing mental frameworks and resisting contradictory ideas. Insights from organizational psychology and neuroscience reveal that this rigidity limits cognitive flexibility, essential for adaptive problem-solving and creative thinking. To mitigate confirmation bias, leaders should foster a culture that encourages open debate and constructive dissent. By seeking out perspectives that challenge their assumptions, leaders activate neuroplasticity, allowing the brain to rewire and adapt to new ideas more readily. This openness to diverse viewpoints prevents cognitive entrenchment, where rigid thinking stifles innovation and responsiveness. In a competitive, ever-evolving landscape, leaders who embrace opposing perspectives and value intellectual diversity promote a culture of continuous learning, keeping their organizations agile and primed for growth. Joshua J Plenert Author of How We Go: Culture-Centric Leadership for High-Functioning Enterprise https://lnkd.in/gwDE3ShK #HowWeGo #leadership #leadershipdevelopment

8

1 Comment

🤔 QUICK QUESTION: How much do you know about Federal systems integrators and the role they play in public sector sales and partnerships? If you bring tech to the public sector markets, you need to know the role they play and how to work with them. I'm referring to companies such as Leidos, Raytheon, Boeing Defense, Space & Security, and L3Harris Technologies 🙋🏼‍♂️ I'm asking because you're in luck, if you want to know more. On today's #SalesGameChangersPodcast, my guests give a masterclass on how to build, maintain, and grow your relationships and partnerships with these types of companies. 🎤 EPISODE 707: Building Strong Federal Systems Integrator Partnerships with Amazon Web Services (AWS) Leaders Michael Blake and Jillian Swenson. 📖🦻🏼 Listen to the show or read the transcription at https://lnkd.in/eS2iRwsf. 🎙️Subscribe and rate the podcast at http://bit.ly/sgcitunes ⭐ JILLIAN’S ‘TIP: “Differentiate yourselves from your peers by leveraging new #GenAI tools to reduce repetitive time-consuming tasks and gain new insights into your customers. It’s going to free you up and help you bring more unique value to your customers.” 🌟 MIKE’S TIP: “Cultivate a positive mindset and resilience. Selling to large integrators can be very challenging. Develop techniques to maintain motivation, overcome rejections, because there will be rejections, and celebrate your successes. Prioritize building those relationships and really understanding these companies. Focus on the customer’s needs, earning their trust, rather than just going for the hard sale.” ❓Have you partnered with large systems integrators in your career? #governmentcontracting #primecontractor #cloud #fedramp #fisma

53

29 Comments

I asked a question in another forum a few weeks ago about how prepared Flight Chiefs (team leaders) are to engage in strategy at their level in the Air Force, and I received the (predictable) response that "strategizing is not required of those in these roles, because they exist at the tactical/operational level". According to Air Force doctrine, "The strategic level of war defines why and with what the conflict occurs. The operational level of war determines what courses of action, in what order, and for what duration forces are employed in the conflict. Finally, the tactical level of war defines how we create the operational effects." (AFDP-1) The Enlisted Force Development Guide states that "Airmen progress from tactical to strategic leadership levels", and this notion of rank-based participation in strategy is consistently reinforced in guidance and training—interpreted often to mean that at the lowest and even team leadership levels, Airmen simply execute: I would add that based on the "levels of war" framing described above, the internalized belief (also learned helplessness?) is that Airmen execute: - Without critically thinking about and determining the why of challenges or opportunities they face, even at their level (that would be strategic) - Without determining what strengths or resources they might bring to bear against those challenges or opportunities (see that would also be strategic) - Without identifying courses of action and durations of resource focusing & employment to take in exploiting or exploring those challenges/opportunities (see that would be operational...) I suggest an alternative: that we think about strategy as being fractal. Everybody engages in strategy, because we are all given some degree of autonomy/ decision-space with a certain amount of resources. And we are simultaneously the "resources" employed within the decision space of leaders above us. It's strategies all the way down. We have necessary autonomy to make sense of unanticipated challenges or opportunities, to determine the most important challenges or opportunities to go after, and to identify what courses of action we will take to focus our given resources to overcome or exploit those challenges or opportunities in service of the strategies we fit into. In a paradigm where I am expected only to execute, it makes sense to simply cease functioning upon encountering situations or challenges that were not anticipated by those whose job it is to dictate my every move. If I'm particularly ambitious, maybe I burden my leaders with the task of micromanaging me through the building and execution of a strategy to overcome these challenges. I am regularly met with the response "why don't we just call it something other than strategy?". I have a response to that: Look at the myriad places that we encounter the word "strategy" in our lives. Now imagine someone anchored to a common understanding of the word as you tell them strategy is not their job.

15

13 Comments

Nine companies have been awarded contract modifications by the Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Pacific. These companies are BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc., Booz Allen Hamilton, ICF Inc. LLC, Leidos Inc., Peraton Technology Services Inc., Parsons Government Services Inc., Science Applications International Corp., Scientific Research Corp., and Peraton Technology Services Inc. This modification allows these companies to exercise Option Two of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, which aims to support the architecture, engineering, functionality, interface, and interoperability of Cyberspace Operations systems, services, and capabilities at tactical, operational, and strategic levels. The total maximum dollar value for all nine contracts combined is $1,856,048,552. Each company has been awarded a specific amount: 1. BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc. - $205,601,340. 2. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. - $204,053,976. 3. ICF Inc. LLC - $240,164,326. 4. Leidos, Inc. - $223,713,581. 5. Peraton Technology Services Inc. - $205,301,482. 6. Parsons Government Services Inc. - $211,984,975. 7. Science Applications International Corporation - $170,488,367. 8. Scientific Research Corp. - $171,923,497. 9. Peraton Technology Services Inc. - $222,817,008. These two-year options extend the five-year contracts to seven years, effectively increasing their total values. The work under this option is scheduled to commence in San Diego, California, from May 2024 and continue until May 2026, providing a clear timeline for the project's execution. No funds will be obligated at the time of award. Instead, funds will be obligated as task orders are issued using various funding sources, including research, development, test and evaluation, other procurement, Navy, operations and maintenance, and other funding. This also includes the potential for defense working capital funds and Foreign Military Sales funding. The contract was competitively procured via Request for Proposal (N66001-18-R-001), published on the Federal Business Opportunities website and the Naval Information Warfare Systems Command e-Commerce central website. A total of 18 offers were received, and nine were selected for award. NIWC Pacific, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity.

3

We have a challenge in the Services. We have lost the art of identifying the good idea cut off point in everything we do: IT, weapons development, etc. We want a perfect capability. We have to design capability in phases to get capability quickly to the user. We call it Agile, but it is Agilefall which is Waterfall development. We need good idea cut off dates and hold them to it. As you see a capability, there is always something better, but get the capability you can now and ensure you use MOSA so you can continue to evolve and innovate the capability. We have to get innovative capability to users NOW. Do not let the user or developers change an agreed to design. Get it done!

67

23 Comments

From #Comedy To #Command Center: The Evolution of the U.S. Space Force 🚀 In 2019, the U.S. Space Force was born. Some laughed, Netflix made a sitcom, and the whole thing seemed surreal. Fast-forward to 2024, and the USSP is a $29 billion powerhouse. Today, the US Space Force streamlining America’s most sensitive space from National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) US Navy and United States Air Force programs to laying the foundation for Next-Gen #Space_Tech and #Defense. With the Artemis Accords for the civilian sector, Space Force is opening doors for a new type of space era, bringing #Public_Private partnerships that were unimaginable just a few years ago. This is where space stops being a far-off dream and becomes the next growth frontier. 🌌 Where’s the main growth verticals happening? Let’s break it down: #Satellite Manufacturing & Services: $271 billion industry, with growth of 5.6% CAGR. Think global connectivity and Earth observation on an unprecedented scale. #Launchers Services: Valued at $12.67 billion in 2022 and on its way to $26.16 billion by 2030. #Reusable_rockets, anyone? #Ground Equipment: A crucial $139.26 billion sector powering satellite data and processing – the silent enabler of the space economy. And it doesn’t stop there. Space tech #unicorns like SpaceX ($150 billion) Relativity Space ($4.2 billion) and Firefly Aerospace are some of the leaders who charge, push boundaries, and show us what’s possible when you combine vision with relentless execution. Now, add Artefical Intellegnce #AI into the mix. AI is fueling this space boom – think #autonomous_navigation, #predictive_maintenance, #real_time analytics and #cyber_security. This isn’t just tech; it’s the fuel that will power everything from Mars missions to precision Earth and Lunar observations. Imagine if visionaries like Elon Musk join as government advisors, closing the gaps between government strategy and private-sector innovation. We're seeing just the beginning. Space is where the bold gets to shape the future. #SpaceForce #ArtemisAccords #SpaceTech #AI #Innovation United States Space Force SpaceX TYPE5 - Venture Capital The White House

11

1 Comment