Skip to content
CubeSTEM MissionLabCubeSTEMMissionLab
Engineering workbench — a technical surface, not a school lesson. Go to the lessons

CubeSTEM MissionLab Twin · M3-D

Spacecraft Configurator Teacher Guide

Learners compare versioned spacecraft profiles under the same deterministic teaching environment, explain subsystem trade-offs and produce an evidence report. The complete activity works without physical hardware.

Open learner configuratorM3-C operations lab

Learning outcomes

  • • Separate spacecraft configuration assumptions from simulated mission evidence.
  • • Explain how power, communications, payload rate and storage affect mission outcomes.
  • • Calculate and interpret mass margin, energy ratios, battery endurance, storage fill time and control-authority indicators.
  • • Recognize that mass, inertia and wheel declarations are not yet dynamically coupled in M3-D.
  • • Defend a configuration choice using comparison criteria rather than visual preference.

Recommended sequence

  • • Predict which profile will perform better and identify the subsystem responsible.
  • • Run the baseline and candidate under the same scenario and seed.
  • • Inspect validation checks before interpreting mission metrics.
  • • Compare energy, contact, downlink, storage and payload evidence.
  • • Write a claim, cite at least three channels and acknowledge one fidelity limitation.
  • • Download the deterministic Markdown report for assessment or portfolio evidence.

Three configuration studies

Eclipse resilience

Which spacecraft configuration preserves the strongest battery reserve through a representative teaching orbit?

Evidence: minimum SOC, final SOC, sunlight energy, load energy, safe-mode frames.

First contact

How do transmitter power, antenna gain, data rate and stored data affect the first teaching downlink opportunity?

Evidence: visible frames, link-available frames, downlink-active frames, downlinked data, remaining storage.

Science/downlink balance

Can the spacecraft generate useful payload data without overwhelming storage and contact capacity?

Evidence: generated data, downlinked data, overflow, final storage, minimum SOC.

12-mark assessment rubric

2

Prediction

States a testable prediction and names the subsystem expected to cause the difference.

3

Evidence

Uses at least three correct channels or derived budgets from the run.

3

Systems reasoning

Explains a trade-off across at least two subsystem domains.

2

Configuration judgement

Selects or revises a profile using the comparison evidence.

2

Fidelity awareness

Correctly states that mass, inertia and wheel declarations are not yet coupled into attitude dynamics.

Teacher safeguards

  • • Do not present built-in profile numbers as CubeSat standard limits or named spacecraft data.
  • • Do not call review checks failures; they identify an engineering question requiring justification.
  • • Keep the measured-channel count at zero unless a later approved hardware-correlation layer is used.
  • • Do not infer thermal, detailed battery chemistry, RF licensing or flight qualification from M3-D.
  • • Engineer-mode JSON is bounded configuration data, not executable code.

Required fidelity statement

Power, communications, payload and storage values are compiled into the unchanged M3-B teaching runtime. Mass, dimensions, inertia, center of mass and reaction-wheel values are declared, validated and reported but do not yet alter M3-B attitude dynamics. All results are software-only practice evidence.