Leading Your Leaders

Even though working on a problem has been your primary effort for the past year, your leadership may have heard about this once in a briefing a decade ago. Now they are basically clueless. Pretend that you are talking to your daughter's fifth-grade class. Explain how your complicated gizmo works. If possible, do not use acronyms. Define your terms. Put your work in context. Assume your leader has no idea what you do, who you work for, or what your gizmo does. That is a good place to start. Remember, taking the next century to study the problem or spending the Gross National Product to invent a new solution are probably not going to be acceptable solutions. Real engineers and technicians build real hardware that works in the real world in a reasonable manner within a reasonable time at a reasonable cost. True, skimping on time or money can cause mistakes, but folks whose gizmos are delayed unreasonably or cost more than is practical get their programs canceled, force the business into bankruptcy, or give the market over to the competition. Real engineers and technicians always consider cost and schedule in their work. Raising questions is important. However, we are in the business of doing things. Engineers and technicians are paid to get things done. Yes, you have to identify the problem, frame the design, identify the tests, perform the analysis, and assemble the hardware. But the goal is to solve the problem. Nobody ever said flying in space was easy. We make it look easy the same way that an Olympic champion makes her sport look easy: by working hard at improving performance every day. Better are the results of a well-defined test. Remember that a test on a laboratory bench is always an approximation of reality, and rules similar to those for good analysis also apply. One should always be mindful of Mechelay's rule: "It is better to be stupid than to run a stupid test." Often we try to overtest. If a piece of hardware passes an unbelievably difficult test, then life is good. More often when an unbelievably difficult test fails, we are left with a very long discussion of why and what was wrong in the design or execution of the test. Make sure that the test is well defined. Even then, it is important to explain to your leaders what inherent accuracy (or error) the test conditions or equipment have and what the assumptions or initial conditions were for the test. Test results without a good understanding of the test's accuracy or the pedigree of the test assumptions are worth very little. Finally, there is flight test data. Always limited, never at the edge of the envelope, it still shows how the real hardware works in a combined environment. Flight experience is dangerous because it typically doesn't show how close to the edge of the cliff the equipment is operating, but it does demonstrate how the hardware really works. A flight test is the ultimate test, again taken with the knowledge that it is probably not the extreme but something more like the middle of the environmental and systems performance. Good understanding of a problem and its solution always relies on a combination of all these methods. Be sure to lead your leaders by using all the tools you have at your disposal. At the end of the day, decisions in space flight always come down to a risk trade. Our business is not remotely safe, not in the sense that the public, the media, or our legislators use the term. Everything we do has a risk, cost, schedule, or performance trade-off. For your leaders to make an appropriate decision, you need to educate them, lead them, talk with them, and engage them in the discussion until full understanding takes place. It's your job.

Wings In Orbit: Scientific and Engineering Legacies of the Space Shuttle

This Space Shuttle book project reviews Wings In Orbit-scientific and engineering legacies of the Space Shuttle. The contents include: 1) Magnificent Flying Machine-A Cathedral to Technology; 2) The Historical Legacy; 3) The Shuttle and its Operations; 4) Engineering Innovations; 5) Major Scientific Discoveries; 6) Social, Cultural, and Educational Legacies; 7) Commercial Aerospace Industries and Spin-offs; and 8) The Shuttle continuum, Role of Human Spaceflight

Biomass production of herbaceous energy crops in the United States: field trial results and yield potential maps from the multiyear regional feedstock partnership

Current knowledge of yield potential and best agronomic management practices for perennial bioenergy grasses is primarily derived from small-scale and short-term studies, yet these studies inform policy at the national scale. In an effort to learn more about how bioenergy grasses perform across multiple locations and years, the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE)/Sun Grant Initiative Regional Feedstock Partnership was initiated in 2008. The objectives of the Feedstock Partnership were to (1) provide a wide range of information for feedstock selection (species choice) and management practice options for a variety of regions and (2) develop national maps of potential feedstock yield for each of the herbaceous species evaluated. The Feedstock Partnership expands our previous understanding of the bioenergy potential of switchgrass, Miscanthus, sorghum, energycane, and prairie mixtures on Conservation Reserve Program land by conducting long-term, replicated trials of each species at diverse environments in the U.S. Trials were initiated between 2008 and 2010 and completed between 2012 and 2015 depending on species. Field-scale plots were utilized for switchgrass and Conservation Reserve Program trials to use traditional agricultural machinery. This is important as we know that the smaller scale studies often overestimated yield potential of some of these species. Insufficient vegetative propagules of energycane and Miscanthus prohibited farm-scale trials of these species. The Feedstock Partnership studies also confirmed that environmental differences across years and across sites had a large impact on biomass production. Nitrogen application had variable effects across feedstocks, but some nitrogen fertilizer generally had a positive effect. National yield potential maps were developed using PRISM-ELM for each species in the Feedstock Partnership. This manuscript, with the accompanying supplemental data, will be useful in making decisions about feedstock selection as well as agronomic practices across a wide region of the country

CMS physics technical design report : Addendum on high density QCD with heavy ions

Peer reviewe

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

Biomass production of herbaceous energy crops in the United States: field trial results and yield potential maps from the multiyear regional feedstock partnership

Current knowledge of yield potential and best agronomic management practices for perennial bioenergy grasses is primarily derived from small-scale and short-term studies, yet these studies inform policy at the national scale. In an effort to learn more about how bioenergy grasses perform across multiple locations and years, the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE)/Sun Grant Initiative Regional Feedstock Partnership was initiated in 2008. The objectives of the Feedstock Partnership were to (1) provide a wide range of information for feedstock selection (species choice) and management practice options for a variety of regions and (2) develop national maps of potential feedstock yield for each of the herbaceous species evaluated. The Feedstock Partnership expands our previous understanding of the bioenergy potential of switchgrass, Miscanthus, sorghum, energycane, and prairie mixtures on Conservation Reserve Program land by conducting long-term, replicated trials of each species at diverse environments in the U.S. Trials were initiated between 2008 and 2010 and completed between 2012 and 2015 depending on species. Field-scale plots were utilized for switchgrass and Conservation Reserve Program trials to use traditional agricultural machinery. This is important as we know that the smaller scale studies often overestimated yield potential of some of these species. Insufficient vegetative propagules of energycane and Miscanthus prohibited farm-scale trials of these species. The Feedstock Partnership studies also confirmed that environmental differences across years and across sites had a large impact on biomass production. Nitrogen application had variable effects across feedstocks, but some nitrogen fertilizer generally had a positive effect. National yield potential maps were developed using PRISM-ELM for each species in the Feedstock Partnership. This manuscript, with the accompanying supplemental data, will be useful in making decisions about feedstock selection as well as agronomic practices across a wide region of the country