Theory
State the engineering choice you must justify. Stage intent: judge trustworthiness.
For teachers
Prepare a mission
Everything you need to run the lesson: the prompts for this academic depth, the diagnostic answer key, the misconceptions to watch for, and the truth boundary to hold.
Choose the mission and depth
Can you trust what the spacecraft tells you?
A spacecraft cannot see itself. Everything it reports comes from instruments, and instruments are never perfect. Your team will fly the same manoeuvre twice, changing nothing except the quality of the instruments, and find out what that does to what the spacecraft knows about itself.
Pilot lesson
What to say at Grade 8
These prompts come from the academic layer, so they change with the depth you selected.
Prediction
Predict which option better satisfies the named criterion.
Running the Twin
Use the Twin to gather comparison evidence for your justification. Runtime remains the frozen Twin; this plan does not execute physics.
Checkpoint
Check that your evidence actually supports the criterion.
Analysis
Justify the choice and name at least one model limitation. Evidence intent: telemetry table/plot + data-quality or provenance statement.
Engineering decision
Select and defend an engineering option for this mission question.
Limitation
Name at least one frozen-model limitation that this experiment cannot answer.
Provenance
Keep simulated, simulated_sensor, estimator_state, derived, reference, and measured distinct. Never label simulated as measured.
Diagnostic answer key
A spacecraft instrument gives a noisy reading. What does that tell you about the spacecraft?
- ✓ Nothing yet - the reading may be wrong while the spacecraft is fine
- · The spacecraft has definitely gone off course
- · The spacecraft has stopped working
Timing
One session. Adjust freely — the sequence matters more than the clock.
| When | Stage | What you are doing |
|---|---|---|
| 0–10 min | Mission brief and outcomes | Set the mission question and the success criterion. |
| 10–20 | Diagnostic | Surface prior ideas. No score — this is for you, not them. |
| 20–35 | Visual theory | Work the concept visual. Ask for the idea in their own words. |
| 35–45 | Prediction | Every learner commits in writing before any run. |
| 45–60 | Twin investigation | Baseline first, then the candidate case. |
| 60–70 | Evidence and decision | Compare, choose, and state one limitation. |
| 70–80 | Assessment and result | Formative only. Collect the written reasoning. |
| Home | Home mission | Software-only extension. No hardware, no account. |
Facilitation and the truth boundary
While they work
- Most learners predict the spacecraft will end up further off with worse instruments. It does not. Let the prediction be wrong before revealing the result - that surprise is the lesson.
- Hold the three ideas apart explicitly: what is true, what was measured, what was concluded.
- The worst estimate error is far larger than the average. Ask what kind of event produces a spike like that.
Can the learner state that the truth error was identical across both runs, and explain why that matters?
Hold this line
- The instrument readings are simulated by a teaching model. No real sensor was measured.
- The onboard estimator here is a teaching estimator, not a flight-certified one.
- This lesson does not show how any particular real instrument would perform.
Home mission
Home mission: the wrong clock
Think of a clock that runs five minutes fast. Write down what is actually true, what the clock says, and what someone reading the clock would believe. Then write one sentence about which of those three a spacecraft engineer would most want to check.
Tell us what did not work
Ten questions, answered locally. Nothing is submitted or tracked — you download the file and send it if you want to.
Informal educator feedback
This local-first form contains the ten approved pilot-review questions. It does not submit, track, or store data remotely. Optional name/contact should be handled outside this form only if a reviewer volunteers it.