Search

This is the presentation,as well as the video recording of the final webinar of a project"Integrating DMPonline with institutional systems at TU Delft" organised on 9 December 2021. The webinar presented the key deliverables of the project and explained some of the lessons learnt. Related resources: The API scripts and documentation on the GitHub repository under GNU GPL-3.0 open source licence are available at: https://github.com/TU-Delft-DCC/ma-dmponline A statistics dashboard can be accessed at: https://dmponline-reports.tudelft.nl/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The project has been funded by a support grant from SURF (20210203-001-MABO-FRJA) &nbsp

This is the TU Delft Research Software Policy approved by the ExecutiveBoard of TU Delft on 16 February 2021. The TU Delft Research Software Policy: facilitates best-practices on research software management and sharing, irrespective of whether the code is proprietary or open source. emphasises the value of research software as a standalone research output and facilitates proper recognition of the contribution of TU Delft researchers to software. sets out some high-level requirements for how software should be managed, the responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved in software development and describes the global workflows that facilitate sharing software openly. This policy is accompanied by the document “TU Delft Guidelines on Research Software: Licensing, Registration and Commercialisation” (http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4629635). The guidelines provide a more detailed description of the workflows involved when sharing software under an open or proprietary licence, elaborate on relevant considerations and provide additional references.

CubeSats were introduced by Robert Twiggs from Stanford University and Jordi PuigSuari from California Polytechnic as an educational project for engineering students. Their aim was to give students a practical experience of designing, building, testing and launching a real satellite. The CubeSat standard has since spread around the world and is now used not only by Universities, but also by space agencies and industry.In previous work, the authors conducted a survey of 45 University teams on how best to set up and manage Cubesat projects. One issue raised by many respondents was the difficulty of passing information and expertise between successive cohorts of students. This makes developing a CubeSat at a University uniquely challenging; for instance, requirements may have been written, or a crucial design decision made, by a student who has since left the University. Another challenge is how to passinformation between students and staff in different departments. To overcome these challenges, a “Community of Practice” (CoP) approach is proposed here as a way of connecting a University CubeSat community and of encouraging better knowledgemanagement. This approach has not, to our knowledge, been used with a CubeSat project before.The goal of this paper is firstly to describe how the University of Bristol CubeSat project was set up as a Community of Practice and secondly to evaluate the value of Community of Practice to the participants in a qualitative way, using the concept of cycles of value. In this paper, the background section provides a review of the different areas relevant to this work: CubeSats, Communities of Practice and their evaluation, and Concurrent Design Facilities. The methodology section describes how the community wasestablished and how the evaluation interviews and survey were carried out. The results section is split into each of the cycles of value and discusses some lessons learned and recommendations for other multi-disciplinary and multi cohort student projects. The conclusions summarise the key points.

This paper is an experimental and numerical investigation of the elastic decay of localised actuation in a tubular engineering origami system. A numerical model of a Miura-ori tube subject to localised actuation is developed, using experimentally determined material properties, and verified by comparing against a locally actuated experimental model. Results indicate that the ratio between the facet and folds stiffness influences the distance over which localised actuation decays in Miura-ori tubes. Furthermore, a `spring-back' effect is observed where an actuation causes an opposite sense deformation further along the tube.

[No Abstract]

CubeSats have been developed by many different institutions since they were introduced by California Polytechnic State University and Stanford University in 1999. A number of papers give lessons learned for individual satellites, some from a technical perspective and other from an educational point of view. However, there is no existing overview of how to set up a CubeSat project. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap, in order to offer those wishing to start a CubeSat programme some ideas of where to start, what equipment is needed and some lessons learned in terms of management. This information was gathered via a survey which was publicised via conferences, mailing lists and LinkedIn groups. At time of writing, 40 groups have completed the survey, including universities, agencies and companies. The respondents came from the US, Europe, Canada, Taiwan, Korea, China, Africa, Australia and South America. The majority of the groups were building 1U or 3U CubeSats with Technology Demonstrator or Science Experiment payloads. The groups were asked a series of questions relating to the characteristics of their projects, including the duration of the project, costs and on what they spent their money. They were also asked what first steps they took in setting up their programme, what equipment and facilities were necessary and how they managed and scheduled the project across multiple cohorts of students. This was identified as challenging by many groups and a variety of ideas and solutions were proposed. Lessons learned covered many aspects of the project with some common themes emerging: planning, learning from other groups, student continuity, documentation, integrating the project within the curriculum, mentoring, software development, simplicity and testing. The groups were asked for their advice to future programme leaders and this is summarised in the paper.

CubeSats have been developed by many different institutions since they were introduced by California Polytechnic State University and Stanford University in 1999. A number of papers give lessons learned for individual satellites, some from a technical perspective and other from an educational point of view. However, there is no existing overview of how CubeSat projects are generally set up. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap, in order to offer those wishing to start a CubeSat programme some ideas of where to start, what equipment is needed and some lessons learned in terms of management. This information was gathered via a survey which was publicised via conferences, mailing lists and LinkedIn groups.At time of writing, 40 groups have completed the survey, including universities, agencies and companies. The respondents came from the US, Europe, Canada, Taiwan, Korea, China, Africa and South America. The majority of the groups were building 1U or 3U CubeSats with Technology Demonstrator or Science Experiment payloads. The groups were asked a series of questions relating to the characteristics of their projects, including the duration of the project, costs and what they spent their money on - including which components they built themselves and which they bought from suppliers. The groups were asked what first steps they took in setting up their programme and what equipment and facilities were necessary. They were also asked about how they managed and scheduled the project across multiple cohorts of students. This was identified as problematic by many groups and a variety of ideas and solutions were proposed. Lessons learned covered many aspects of the project with some common themes emerging: planning, learning from other groups, student continuity, documentation, integrating the project within the curriculum, mentoring, software development, simplicity and testing. The groups were asked for their advice to future programme leaders and this is summarised in the paper.