Cyber Security: Big Concern for Small Fish

Do you think your library\u27s web server or electronic devices are of no interest to hackers because yours is a small library? Think again! Jim will show you what the bad guys are after and why, with a possible live look at his library\u27s web traffic

I-69 ORX: A Bistate Megaproject = Project Management2

Managing a large project is full of challenges. Needs grow exponentially when you’re managing a bistate megaproject with two clients and twice the number of agencies, elected leaders, community groups, media outlets, and other stakeholders. The I-69 Ohio River Crossing team will share strategies to improve internal and external communications, streamline processes, build consensus, increase collaboration, and maximize stakeholder engagement—all while maintaining an accelerated schedul

Point-Focus Concentration Compact Telescoping Array: EESP Option 1 Phase Final Report for Public Release

Orbital ATK, in partnership with Mark ONeill LLC (MOLLC) and SolAero Technologies Corp., has developed a novel solar array platform, PFC-CTA, which provides a significant advance in performance and cost reduction compared to all currently available space solar systems. PFC refers to the Point Focus Concentration of light provided by MOLLCs thin, flat Fresnel optics. These lenses focus light to a point of approximately 100 times the intensity of the ambient light, onto a solar cell of approximately 1/25th the size of the lens. CTA stands for Compact Telescoping Array1, which is the solar array blanket structural platform originally devised by NASA and currently being advanced by Orbital ATK and partners under NASA and AFRL funding to a projected TRL 5+ by late-2018. The NASA Game Changing Development Extreme Environment Solar Power (EESP) Option 1 Phase study has enabled Orbital ATK to generate and refine component designs, perform component level and system performance analyses, and test prototype hardware of the key elements of PFC-CTA, and increased the TRL of PFC-specific technology elements to TRL ~5. Key performance metrics currently projected are as follows: Scalability from 300 kW per wing (AM0); Specific Power > 250 W/kg (BoL, AM0); Stowage Efficiency > 60 kW/m3; 5:1 margin on pointing tolerance vs. capability; >50% launched cost savings; Wide range of operability between Venus and Saturn by active and/or passive thermal management

Effect of Crop Residue on Soil Water Content and Yield of Deficit-Irrigated Corn and Soybean

It is believed that reduced tillage, with more crop residue on the soil surface, conserves water, especially in arid and semi-arid climates. However, the magnitude of water conservation is not clear. In 2007, a study was initiated on the effect of residue on soil water content and crop yield at North Platte, Nebraska. The experiment was conducted on plots planted to field corn (Zea mays L.) in 2007 and 2008, and soybean (Glycine max) in 2009. There were two treatments: residue-covered soil and bare soil. Bare-soil plots were created in April 2007 by using a dethatcher and subsequent hand-raking. In April 2008 and 2009, bare-soil plots were recreated on the same plots as in 2007. The experiment consisted of eight plots (two treatments with four replications each). Each plot was 12.2 m by 12.2 m. The crop was sprinkler-irrigated, but purposely water-stressed, so that any water conservation in the residue-covered plots might translate into higher yields. In 2007, mean corn yield was 12.4 Mg ha-1 in the residue-covered plots and 10.8 Mg ha-1 in the baresoil plots. Other research has shown that it takes 65-100 mm of irrigation water to produce this extra 1.6 Mg ha-1, which may be considered water conservation due to the residue. In 2008, the residue covered soil held approximately 60 mm more water in the top 1.83 m compared to the bare soil towards the end of the growing season. In addition, mean corn yield was 11.7 Mg ha-1 in the residue covered plots and 10.6 Mg ha-1 in the bare-soil plots. It would take 30-65 mm of irrigation water to produce the difference. Thus, the total amount of water conservation due to the residue was 90-125 mm in 2008. In 2009, the residue-covered soil held approximately 90 mm more water in the top 1.83 m compared to the bare soil towards the end of the growing season. Also, mean soybean yield was 4.5 Mg ha-1 in the residue-covered plots and 3.9 Mg ha-1 in the bare-soil plots. Between 70-90 mm of irrigation water would be required to produce the difference