Prepare a mission
Point it where you want it.
Section 7 of 7
Truth & feedback
The line to hold about model evidence, and a local way to tell us what did not work.
Mission & depth
Mission: Commanding attitude · Academic depth: University · Duration: 55–70 minutes
The mission
Telling a spacecraft where to point is easy. Getting it there is the hard part, and it is the controller that does the work. Your team will run the same manoeuvre with two different controllers and find out what a more accurate one actually costs.
One session of 55–70 minutes at University.
Teaching brief
What to say at University
These prompts come from the academic layer, so they change with the depth you selected.
- Theory
- State professional terminology, lineage, and model-limit questions. Stage intent: plant model.
- Prediction
- Predict where the model is expected to be useful and where it is not.
- Running the Twin
- Inspect allowed lineage/hash channels only if the profile discloses them. Runtime remains the frozen Twin; this plan does not execute physics.
- Checkpoint
- Separate simulated, derived, reference, and (if ever present) measured evidence.
- Analysis
- Design, integrate, verify, and validate within frozen Core V1 limits. Evidence intent: attitude/rate plot + calculated/qualitative response comparison.
- Engineering decision
- Produce a V&V-style conclusion that does not claim flight qualification.
- 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
Diagnostic answer key
A spacecraft is told to point at a new target. What has to happen?
- ✓ It has to turn, and something has to make it turn
- · It points instantly
- · It waits until it drifts into position
Timing & facilitation
Timing
One session of 55–70 minutes. Adjust freely — the sequence matters more than the clock.
| When | Stage | What you are doing |
|---|---|---|
| 0 → 5–6 min | Mission | Set the role, objective, mission question, and success criterion. |
| 5–6 → 17–21 min | Preparation | Diagnostic, theory, and a written prediction before any run. |
| 17–21 → 20–25 min | Readiness | Learners confirm the local formative gate after preparation passes. |
| 20–25 → 35–45 min | Operate | Run the bounded baseline, then the candidate where comparison is disclosed. |
| 35–45 → 47–60 min | Evidence | Inspect provenance, select evidence, decide, state a limitation, and complete the formative assessment. |
| 47–60 → 53–68 min | Complete | Review the result band, reflect, and finalize local practice at any band. |
| 53–68 → 55–70 min | Recognition | Explain the local record and the separate future verified-recognition boundary. |
While they work
- The tuned controller is better on pointing and worse on wheel demand. Learners who report only the first have read half the evidence.
- One wheel saturation event appears in the tuned run. Ask what happens to a controller whose actuator has run out of authority.
- Instruments are identical in both runs here, unlike the sensing mission. Say so if learners conflate the two.
Can the learner state both what the tuned controller gained and what it cost?
Misconceptions
Misconceptions to watch for
Authored lesson design — what a class reliably gets wrong here, and where you can catch it. Not a claim about any learner.
“The tuned controller points better, so it is simply the better choice.”
Ask for the wheel demand alongside the pointing error. A learner reporting only the first has read half the evidence.
Watch: the decision option "Recommend the most accurate one and ignore the cost" · Code:
constraint_budget_or_tradeoff_omission“The tuned run points better because its sensors are better.”
The instruments are identical in both runs — unlike the sensing mission, which is where this idea usually comes from. Only the controller changed.
Watch: evidence — The controller comparison for the two runs · Code:
cause_effect_or_control_logic_reversal“A saturation event is a glitch in the run.”
Ask what a controller does when its actuator has run out of authority. The event is the actuator's limit becoming visible, and it is the most instructive thing in the run.
Watch: evidence — One thing this model does not cover · Code:
constraint_budget_or_tradeoff_omission
Review & extension
What a good reflection contains
Which signal decided your control recommendation, and why would one successful simulation not qualify a flight controller?
- Reports both what the tuned controller bought and what it cost.
- Names the saturation event rather than passing over it.
- Does not attribute the improvement to better instruments — they are identical in both runs.
If they finish early, or go further
- Buy the accuracy you need (Grades 9–10 and above)
Decide how accurate the pointing has to be for a camera to be worth carrying, then say which controller you would choose and what you are paying for it.
- Predict the saturation (Grades 11–12 and above)
Describe the conditions under which you would expect the wheel to run out of authority again, and name the figure you would watch to see it coming.
Home mission
Home mission: stopping on a line
Walk quickly to a line on the floor and stop exactly on it. Then do it slowly. Write down which was more accurate, which was faster, and what the quick version cost you.
Truth & feedback
Hold this line
- These results are produced by a model. Nothing here was measured on a real spacecraft.
- The disturbances and reference directions are controlled teaching values, not an orbit-derived environment.
- This lesson does not show that any controller is ready to fly.
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.