QUARTERLY VOL. 3 NO. 4 SPRING 2012 BEYoNd ThE Standoff VISIBLE : detection IQT Quarterly is a publication of In-Q-Tel, Inc., the strategic investment firm that serves as a bridge between the U.S. Intelligence Community and venture-backed startup firms on the leading edge of technological innovation. IQT Quarterly advances the situational awareness component of the IQT mission, serving as a platform to debut, discuss, and debate issues of innovation in the areas of overlap between commercial potential and U.S. Intelligence Community needs. For comments or questions regarding IQT or this document, please visit www.iqt.org, write to [email protected], or call 703-248-3000. The views expressed are those of the authors in their personal capacities and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of IQT, their employers, or the Government. ©2012 In-Q-Tel, Inc. This document was prepared by In-Q-Tel, Inc., with Government funding (U.S. Government Contract No. 2009*0674524*000). The Government has Government Purpose License Rights in this document. Subject to those rights, the reproduction, display, or distribution of the Quarterly without prior written consent from IQT is prohibited. EdIToRIAL IQT Quarterly, published by In-Q-Tel, Inc. Editor-in-Chief: Lisa L. Bader Theme Editor: Michael C. Berg Contributing Editors: Brittany Smith, Emma Resnick, and Adam Dove Managing Editor: Lisbeth Poulos Design by Lomangino Studio, Inc. Printed in the United States of America QUARTERLY Identify. Adapt. Deliver.™ TABLE OF CONTENTS On Our Radar: Beyond the Visible 02 By Michael C. Berg A Look Inside: Standoff Detection 04 By Michael C. Berg Maximizing Behavior Analysis with Massive Multi-Sensor Networks 05 By Serge Olszanskyj Infrared Approaches for Standoff Detection of Explosives 09 By R. Andrew McGill, Christopher A. Kendziora, Robert Furstenberg, and Michael Papantonakis Eye-Safe Standoff Fusion Detection of CBE Threats 14 By Matthew P. Nelson, Patrick J. Treado, and Steven E. Mitts Sensing Concealed Threats at a Distance: Where Do We Stand? 18 By Daniel van der Weide Considerations in Standoff Biometrics 22 By Stephanie Schuckers and Ralph McGregor In the Spotlight: Customer Needs Profile 27 Featuring Anna Tedeschi and Thomas Coty Tech Corner 30 A technology overview from IQT portfolio company Genia Photonics In the News 33 IQT QUARTERLY SPRING 2012 Vol. 3 No. 4 01 IQT QUARTERLY oN oUR RAdAR BEYoNd ThE VISIBLE By Michael C. Berg After the Cold War, the U.S. enjoyed about a decade during which the threat of nuclear war and other weapons of mass destruction (or psychological mass effect) seemed remote. That atmosphere changed dramatically on September 11, 2001. Since then, the U.S. has reorganized its government and taken measures to protect citizens from chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) weapons. While concerns about CBRNE weapons seem fresh The technological challenges in combating CBRNE in the popular consciousness, the roots of CBRNE weapons are significant. However, the detection and weapons are deep in human experience. Explosives analysis of CBRNE threats performed at a standoff ("E") have played a role in warfare since the invention distance represents the leading edge of innovation in of gunpowder, while the development and deployment counter-CBRNE technology. Sensors and detection of chemical and biological ("CB") weapons required techniques, no matter what the subject of analysis the industrialization of chemistry and the birth of (chemical, person, activity, etc.), can be broadly grouped microbiology in the late 1800s. Their use in World into three categories: War I drove the concurrent development of • Detection that requires samples to be actively placed countermeasures and the first crude means of or come into contact with the instrument, such as in detecting CB weapons in the environment. Advances traditional laboratory analysis techniques. in physics thereafter led to the development of atomic bombs in the 1940s as well as the first • Detection in which the sample or a portion of the countermeasures against radiological and nuclear sample reaches the detector on its own without ("RN") hazards. CBRNE weapons were once largely in operator intervention. The most common example is the operational domain of nation-states. However, the a trace vapor detection system. globalization of trade, increased access to global travel, • Detection involving true standoff techniques, where and the advent of the Internet have lowered barriers for the sensor operates without any physical contact small groups or individuals to exploit CBRNE. Extremist with the sample. groups and lone-wolf actors covet and have used CBRNE arms to cause terror. Small scale attacks can This third detection scenario is the focus of our and have had large, lasting effects on everyday life (even current discussion. In this context, the sample may when unsuccessful), as every air traveler knows. be a trace amount of chemical residue, a container, 02 Vol. 3 No. 4 Identify. Adapt. Deliver.™ IQT QUARTERLY a person, an unknown device, a chemical plume, or spectrum can offer the ability to image objects through a location that needs to be monitored. The distance many types of materials, including common building required for a given standoff technique can vary greatly materials and clothing. The most widely known depending on the particular application or Concept of example of imaging in this area of the spectrum is the Operations (CONOPS). For example, a suitable standoff airport portals that use mm-wave imaging to screen distance may be a few inches for a security screening for potential threats. technique, or it may be a few miles or more in some Whether sensors are designed to detect chemical types of surveillance. compounds, biological samples, biometric signals, Many techniques used in standoff detection tend radiation, explosives, or hidden objects, the ability to be optical approaches that rely on collecting to gather information from as far away as possible and analyzing light at various wavelengths in the with the least interaction with the sample or subject electromagnetic spectrum. The visible part of the is often seen as the ultimate game-changer in spectrum provides some degree of insight, but by threat detection. It can mean that instead of relying going outside the visible range, it is possible to obtain on traditional security checkpoints, screening for even more information about the subject of interest. potential threats can be done without impeding For example, it may be possible to determine whether pedestrian traffic. The ability can also place a surface has been exposed to certain types of users outside a potential blast radius in defense applications, or accommodate covert intelligence chemicals or explosives, detect whether a person is gathering at a much further distance from the subject carrying CBRNE materials under his or her clothing, of interest. Such applications are why standoff or visualize potential threats through walls. detection techniques have so much potential and Standoff techniques may be either active (require the why research in this area has garnered tremendous viewer to illuminate the scene of interest) or passive interest. However, standoff techniques have not yet (use only ambient light as a source of illumination) been fully utilized in the areas where they could have depending on the particular application, and they may a large impact. also use different areas across the electromagnetic Perhaps the reason for this underutilization is spectrum. The applicable part of the spectrum depends that implementation of standoff detection systems greatly on what the user is trying to detect, and in what represents a new set of challenges in defining conditions the measurement is being performed (e.g., requirements and users’ CONOPS. For example, outdoor vs. indoor, day vs. night, near vs. far, interferences do the same trace detection definitions apply? How present, etc.). For example, the mid-wave infrared far away is far enough? Are there safety or privacy (MWIR) portion of the spectrum contains signatures concerns? How can different techniques be fused or fingerprints of many different types of chemical together to offer a potential solution? compounds, including explosives, chemical warfare agents (CWAs), and toxic industrial chemicals (TICs). Standoff detection technology will likely continue to evolve and could prove to be the ultimate Moving up the spectrum in wavelength to the edge game-changer in threat detection applications of the infrared and microwave regions, the terahertz by allowing for capabilities that were previously and millimeter-wave (mm-wave) portions of the thought impossible. Dr. Michael C. Berg is a Member of the Technical Staff in In-Q-Tel’s Physical and Biological Technologies Practice, where he manages the Threat Detection theme. Before joining IQT in 2010, Berg worked as a researcher for the Army Research Laboratory’s Weapons & Materials Research Directorate, where he focused on advanced polymeric gels, shape-memory materials, and biomaterials. Earlier in his career, he served as the Chief Technology Officer at Soane Labs, LLC, where he was on the founding teams of several spin-out companies which focused on novel uses of polymers and nanotechnology. His industrial experience also includes working as a research scientist and process engineer at larger manufacturing companies. Berg holds a B.S. in chemical engineering from Virginia Tech and a Ph.D. in chemical engineering