Theory
Frame the trade using performance criteria and bounded policy/language where allowed. Stage intent: justify.
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
Make the budgets close.
A spacecraft design is a set of promises that all have to be kept at once: enough power, enough storage, mass within limit, balance within tolerance. Your team will put two designs through the same mission and check every budget, not just the ones that pass.
Pilot lesson
What to say at Grades 11–12
These prompts come from the academic layer, so they change with the depth you selected.
Prediction
Predict the trade outcome against named criteria.
Running the Twin
Use existing safe grammar or bounded controls only; never arbitrary hosted code. Runtime remains the frozen Twin; this plan does not execute physics.
Checkpoint
Check criteria, uncertainty, and forbidden claims.
Analysis
Evaluate and optimise within the frozen Twin limits. Evidence intent: configuration record + trade matrix + justified design choice.
Engineering decision
Record an engineering memo decision that remains software-authoritative.
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 design has plenty of spare power but exceeds its mass limit. What is the verdict?
- ✓ It does not pass - every budget has to close
- · It passes, because power matters most
- · It passes if the excess mass is small
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
- The headline comparison is not the decision. Insist on every check.
- Budgets are computed from declared inputs, not from a CAD model. Say so before a learner claims design truth.
- This mission is not disclosed below Grades 9-10; the budget reasoning depends on handling several constraints at once.
Can the learner name every check that needs review and explain why one failing budget outweighs several comfortable ones?
Hold this line
- These budgets are computed from declared inputs, not measured from hardware.
- This is not a CAD model and makes no claim about manufacturability.
- This lesson does not establish that either design would work in orbit.
Home mission
Home mission: four constraints at once
Plan a day trip with a fixed budget, a fixed amount of time, a bag with limited space and a train you must not miss. Write down which constraint binds first, and what you would change to relieve it without breaking the others.
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.