Prepare a mission
Point the spacecraft. Change the power.
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: Sunlight to energy · Academic depth: Grade 8 · Duration: 55–70 minutes
The mission
Your spacecraft runs on sunlight. Its solar panels only make electricity when light reaches them, and how much reaches them depends on which way the spacecraft is facing. Your team will test two ways of pointing it, compare what the Twin produces, and recommend one — saying clearly what your evidence does and does not prove.
One session of 55–70 minutes at Grade 8.
Teaching brief
What to say at Grade 8
These prompts come from the academic layer, so they change with the depth you selected.
- Theory
- State the engineering choice you must justify. Stage intent: justify an attitude strategy using energy evidence.
- 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: solar/SOC comparison + coupling limitation 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
Diagnostic answer key
A solar panel turns away from the Sun. What changes?
- ✓ Less light arrives straight on, so it makes less electricity
- · The Sun gets dimmer
- · Nothing changes, because the Sun is still shining
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
- Keep the comparison inside the supplied presets.
- Ask learners to name provenance before they make a claim.
- Do not allow the accepted coupling to be described as a complete spacecraft or measured result.
Can the learner support an energy recommendation and state the reference-geometry limitation?
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 panel made less power, so the Sun must have got dimmer.”
Hold the Sun fixed and move the panel by hand. The supply never changed; what changed is how much of it lands square on the surface.
Watch: the "orientation" diagnostic · Code:
cause_effect_or_control_logic_reversal“These energy numbers show what a real spacecraft would collect.”
Ask which instrument produced the figure. There is none — it is computed from the model's geometry, so it bounds a comparison, not a real collection.
Watch: the decision option "Say the model proves how a real spacecraft would behave" · Code:
evidence_provenance_or_verification_gap
Review & extension
What a good reflection contains
How did your recommendation change after you compared the two runs, and what would you measure before using it on real hardware?
- Names which run collected more, and by how much, rather than which felt better.
- Says what changed the learner's mind — a prediction that survived is as reportable as one that did not.
- Names a measurement that would have to be taken on real hardware, not a general wish for 'more testing'.
If they finish early, or go further
- Find where the advantage disappears (Grades 9–10 and above)
The corner-biased hold wins here. Work out what would have to change about the orbit or the pointing for that advantage to vanish, then say which number in your evidence you would watch to detect it.
- Write the limitation as an engineer would (Grade 8 and above)
Rewrite your recommendation as two sentences: one stating what the evidence supports, one stating the bound. Neither sentence may contain the word 'proves'.
Home mission
Home mission: find the angle
Draw a solar panel twice: once facing the Sun straight on, once turned away. Label which one you think collects more light. Then write one question you would want answered before trusting this model for a real mission.
Truth & feedback
Hold this line
- The energy and battery numbers are produced by a model. Nothing here was measured on a real spacecraft.
- The incidence figure is calculated from the model's geometry, not observed.
- This lesson does not show how a whole real spacecraft would perform, and it is not evidence that a design 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.