For teachers | CubeSTEM MissionLab

The mission

A spacecraft pushed out of a launcher is tumbling, and until that stops nothing else can happen. No pointing, no charging, no contact. Your team will try two ways of bringing the spin under control and find out that one of them makes things worse before it makes them better.

One session of 55–70 minutes at Grade 7.

What to say at Grade 7

These prompts come from the academic layer, so they change with the depth you selected.

Theory: State what you will compare between two runs. Stage intent: overshoot.
Prediction: Predict which run will differ and in which direction.
Running the Twin: Run a baseline and a comparison on the Twin. Runtime remains the frozen Twin; this plan does not execute physics.
Checkpoint: Record the difference you observed.
Analysis: Identify what changed and what stayed the same. Evidence intent: angle-time/performance plots + criterion-based recommendation.
Engineering decision: Recommend which option better meets the classroom criterion.
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.

Timing

One session of 55–70 minutes. Adjust freely — the sequence matters more than the clock.

Suggested lesson timing
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 light damping run peaks higher than it started and never settles. That is the mission - let learners find it in the chart.
Never settling is a result, not missing data. Press learners who leave it blank.
Keep this separate from the pointing mission: here the target is zero rotation, not a direction.

Can the learner describe the overshoot, and say why never settling matters for the rest of the mission?

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.

“Lighter damping is gentler, so it must be the safer setting.”
Follow the light-damping trace: it peaks higher than it started and never settles. Gentle here means the tumble outlasts the mission.
Watch: the decision option "Recommend the gentler setting because it sounds safer" · Code: cause_effect_or_control_logic_reversal
“The light-damping run has no settling time because the data is missing.”
Never settling is a result. Press any learner who leaves the field blank to write it down as a finding.
Watch: evidence — The spin comparison for the two amounts of damping · Code: evidence_provenance_or_verification_gap
“Stabilising and pointing are the same job.”
Here the target is zero rotation; in the pointing mission it is a direction. Ask what 'success' looks like on the chart in each case — they are different shapes.
Watch: the "spin" diagnostic · Code: reference_frame_or_axis_confusion

What a good reflection contains

What trade-off mattered most in stopping the tumble, and what hardware effect is outside this model?

States when the spin came to rest, or reports plainly that it never did.
Explains why the gentler setting is not automatically the safer one.
Keeps this mission's target — zero rotation — distinct from pointing at a direction.

If they finish early, or go further

Find the setting that just works (Grades 9–10 and above)
Between the two runs there is a damping level that settles the spin without overshooting. Describe how you would search for it and what evidence would tell you that you had found it.
Why can it not push off something? (Grade 7 and above)
Write an explanation, for someone who has not done this mission, of why a tumbling spacecraft has to use its own wheels. Use the word 'push' at least twice and make both uses correct.

Home mission

Home mission: the swinging door

Push a door and try to stop it exactly half open, using only one hand and one push. Try it gently and firmly. Write down which overshot, which settled, and what that tells you about damping.

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 real spacecraft would stabilise this way.

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.

1. Role (teacher / school leader / university faculty / STEM educator / other)2. Which experience (MLX-15 / Orbit-Pass-Link / both)3. Learning objective clear? (1–5)4. Imagine using with learners at the selected level? (yes / maybe / no)5. Most valuable part6. Confusing part7. Did any wording overclaim reality vs model?8. Academic depth (too easy / appropriate / too advanced)9. What would you need before trying with your own learners?10. Willing to test with a small class? (yes / maybe / no)

Stop the tumble.

Diagnostic

Mission & depth