Theory
State professional terminology, lineage, and model-limit questions. Stage intent: DSD/profile lineage.
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 University
These prompts come from the academic layer, so they change with the depth you selected.
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: configuration record + trade matrix + justified design choice.
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 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 of 55–70 minutes. Adjust freely — the sequence matters more than the clock.
| When | Stage | What you are doing |
|---|---|---|
| 0 → 4–5 min | Mission | Set the role, objective, mission question, and success criterion. |
| 4–5 → 14–18 min | Preparation | Diagnostic, theory, and a written prediction before any run. |
| 14–18 → 17–22 min | Readiness | Learners confirm the local formative gate after preparation passes. |
| 17–22 → 31–40 min | Operate | Run the bounded baseline, then the candidate where comparison is disclosed. |
| 31–40 → 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. |
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 design has plenty of spare power, so it passes.”
Margin in one budget does not buy margin in another. Ask which check failed and whether anything in the design can trade against it.
Watch: the "budget" diagnostic · Code: constraint_budget_or_tradeoff_omission
“The budgets closing means the design is proven.”
These are computed from declared inputs, not from a CAD model or a built article. Say so before a learner turns a closing budget into design truth.
Watch: evidence — Where each number came from · Code: evidence_provenance_or_verification_gap
“The larger design wins because it has more margin overall.”
Insist on every check individually. 'More margin overall' is an average, and a design is not allowed to average its way past a limit.
Watch: the decision option "The larger design, because it has more margin" · Code: constraint_budget_or_tradeoff_omission
Reflection and extension
What a good reflection contains
Which constraint bound first, and what would you change without breaking a different budget?
- Reports every check, not the headline comparison alone.
- States that the budgets are computed from declared inputs rather than from a design model.
- Names which single constraint decided the verdict.
If they finish early, or go further
- Close the failing budget (Grades 11–12 and above)
Take the design that does not pass and propose the smallest change that closes its failing check. State what that change costs in the other budgets.
- Which input would you challenge? (University and above)
Every budget here rests on declared inputs. Name the one you would want independently confirmed first, and say what the verdict would do if it turned out to be wrong.
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.