Teacher lens
Can you trust what the spacecraft tells you?
The same spacecraft model at all six academic depths. Nothing below is written by hand — every cell is read from the disclosure layer the lesson actually uses.
← PrepareSunlight to energyOrbit pass and linkPower through the shadowTruth and measurementDeployment to first contactCommanding attitudeStabilising the spinSurviving the environmentPlanning the observationConfiguring the spacecraftDiagnosing the missionWriting a safe policyProving it against evidence
What each depth is asked to produce
These requirements drive which inputs the learner sees.
| Depth | Prediction | Two cases | Plot or table | Explanation | Limitation | Provenance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 6 | Yes | — | Yes | Yes | — | — |
| Grade 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | — | — |
| Grade 8 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Grades 9–10 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Grades 11–12 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| University | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Which evidence channels are visible
A channel hidden at a depth is removed on the server. It never reaches the learner's browser.
| Channel | Grade 6 | Grade 7 | Grade 8 | Grades 9–10 | Grades 11–12 | University |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| attitude angle | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| control error | — | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| mission state | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Learner wording and curriculum wording
Learners read the mission in plain language. The curriculum phrasing signed off in the frozen academic layer is unchanged, and is shown here so you can map one to the other.
| Step | What the learner reads | Academic phrasing |
|---|---|---|
| Mission question | If the instruments get worse, does the spacecraft get worse - or does it just stop knowing where it is? | Which measurements prove what the spacecraft is actually doing, and what is their provenance? |
| Theory | Two runs, one difference: the quality of the instruments. The manoeuvre and the controls are identical, so anything that changes came from the instruments. | Name what you will observe in familiar language. Stage intent: describe trends. |
| Prediction | Before you run anything: if we fit worse instruments, will the spacecraft end up further from its target? Say what you expect and why. | Predict a simple trend (higher/lower, sooner/later) before running the Twin. |
| Run | Fly it with perfect instruments first, then with realistic ones. Nothing else changes. | Run the Twin once and describe what you see. Runtime remains the frozen Twin; this plan does not execute physics. |
| Analysis | Look at the two lines. One is where the spacecraft really was. The other is how wrong its own estimate was. Compare them across both runs. | Explain the trend without using hidden hashes or professional jargon. Evidence intent: telemetry table/plot + data-quality or provenance statement. |
| Decision | Which set of instruments would you fit, and which number in your evidence supports that? | Choose a simple next action and say why it is safer or clearer. |
| Limitation | Name one thing this model does not tell you about real instruments. | Name at least one frozen-model limitation that this experiment cannot answer. |