Prepare a mission
Find the pass. Plan the contact.
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: Orbit pass and link · Academic depth: Grade 7 · Duration: 55–70 minutes
The mission
A satellite can only talk to a ground station while it is above the horizon. That window is short, and it does not happen on demand. Your team will work out when the next window opens, plan what to do with it, and stay honest about the difference between being in view and actually getting the data.
One session of 55–70 minutes at Grade 7.
Teaching brief
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: compare two.
- 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: ground track/pass plot + observation/contact plan + model-limitation note.
- 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.
Diagnostic
Diagnostic answer key
You can see on a map that the satellite is passing overhead. Does that mean you have received its data?
- ✓ No — being in view, receiving a signal and reading the data are three different things
- · Yes — if you can see it, the data is coming through
- · Only if the map is showing live positions
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
- Repeat the truth line: tracked ≠ signal received ≠ data decoded.
- Use only the channels visible for the chosen academic level.
- Keep M3-G declared teaching windows separate from M3-A derived pass evidence.
Can the learner make a contact-plan recommendation without upgrading modeled evidence into a reception or decode claim?
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 map shows the satellite overhead, so the data is coming through.”
Walk the three claims apart out loud — in view, signal received, data decoded — and ask which one the map can possibly evidence. Only the first.
Watch: the "truth" diagnostic · Code:
truth_estimate_measurement_confusion“A pass appearing in the window is proof the link worked.”
Ask what a received signal would look like in the evidence. Nothing on the board can show one, which is exactly why the claim cannot be made.
Watch: the decision option "Report that a signal was received" · Code:
evidence_provenance_or_verification_gap“Nothing appeared in the short window, so the run did not work.”
A window with no pass is the result. Ask what it tells them about when to try next — that is the planning skill.
Watch: evidence — Whether a pass appeared in each window · Code:
cause_effect_or_control_logic_reversal
Review & extension
What a good reflection contains
Which part of your contact plan is supported by the model, and which part still needs measured radio evidence?
- Separates the part of the plan the window supports from the part that needs radio evidence.
- Treats the empty two-hour window as a finding, not a failed run.
- Uses 'in view' language for what the model showed, and does not slide into 'received' or 'downloaded'.
If they finish early, or go further
- Plan around a window you cannot move (Grade 8 and above)
Write a contact plan for a pass half as long as the one you found. Say what you would drop first, and why that order and not another.
- Three claims, three kinds of evidence (Grades 9–10 and above)
For each of tracked, received and decoded, name the evidence that would settle it and who would have to produce that evidence. Mark which of the three this lesson can supply.
Home mission
Home mission: three honest steps
Write a three-step plan for talking to a satellite as it passes overhead. Next to each step, mark whether it is something you can plan from a map, something that needs proof the radio worked, or something that needs proof the data arrived.
Truth & feedback
Hold this line
- Everything you see is calculated by a model. No radio signal was received and no data was downloaded.
- The windows shown are teaching examples. They are not a real schedule for a real satellite.
- This lesson makes no claim about radio reception or about reading mission data.
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.