KSP in a AP Plysics classroom ideas?

[TheAwer]

Hello everyone!

Tomorrow I will show a high school AP Physics teacher KSP. I want to get him to use KSP in his class some way. He said that the class is studying orbital stuff soon, so this could possibly be used soon in the classroom or otherwise after the exam.

I’ve heard about KerbalEdu, and their mod seems like it would be good to use. I’ve also found the A Plus Physics site (http://www.aplusphysics.com/projects/kerbal.html) and I’m thinking I could show him that as an example of what can be done in the classroom. If anyone knows of something that’s more recent, it would be great to know about that.

What I’m wondering is what ideas you guys have for what the class could do. The periods are 90 minutes long, but only 2 or 3 days a week. A range of ideas would be great! I’m not sure whether the group (of about 15) would be divided up into teams or work together.

What I’ve come up with so far (assuming KSP is given a fair amount of time):

Intro to KSP + Design orbital rocket + orbit + deorbit (1 day?)

Design mun lander + orbit + Orbital maneuvers + mun rendezvous (1 day?)

Mun landing + Mun orbit (1 day?)

Also, anyone know of a good trailer other than Build Fly Dream? That one seems a little too slow paced for me.

I’ll be on and off today, so I won’t always be able to reply right away.

[EtherDragon]

You could easily use KSP to demonstrate Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion - and then go a little further to explain how those same laws are used in Rocket Science.

[tater]

You could easily use KSP to demonstrate Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion - and then go a little further to explain how those same laws are used in Rocket Science.

Yeah, this is a good place to start.

I think instructionally, the non-intuitive nature of orbital maneuvering is also pretty cool (and so often done exactly wrong in popular culture ("point at it and burn straight for it" (though I was perfectly happy to see Sandra Bullock in yoga shorts, don't get me wrong)).

[SunChaser]

The A-Plus Physics project looks great. You wouldn't have to do all of them, just pick and choose a few, i.e. achieve 50-km sub-orbital trajectory, orbit Kerbin, land and return from Minmus. Could be very fun and an excellent way to visualize those challenging problems. Plus group-work is the best way to learn, or so they told me at school.

Keep in mind high school and 200-level university courses (if i remember correctly) spend only a few days on orbital mechanics like Kepler's Laws as EtherDragon said before generalizing the concepts and math in order to do gravitational problems. You can't model a lot of that stuff in KSP, as it (currently) does not have n-body physics, so no Lagrange Points, etc.

[TheAwer]

Thanks for the ideas, guys! Adapting the A-Plus Physics idea does seem like a good idea, and the 3 laws of planetary motion would also be easy to demonstrate.

I'll write up some more ideas later.

[cantab]

If you're using the stock game or the demo, I would be inclined to focus on the orbital mechanics. To that end you can set up your scenarios with craft already in orbit. If you plan on teaching aspects of rocket launches I strongly advise an aerodynamics mod. For rocket design, I suggest encouraging people to keep things simple, such that structural failures - which aren't handled at all realistically - aren't an issue.

And indeed, once the course gets into more advanced aspects of gravitation, you can talk about how KSP uses the patched conics approximation and thus can't model certain trajectories.

[Rowsdower]

Let us know how it goes, TheAwer.

[TheAwer]

If you're using the stock game or the demo, I would be inclined to focus on the orbital mechanics. To that end you can set up your scenarios with craft already in orbit. If you plan on teaching aspects of rocket launches I strongly advise an aerodynamics mod. For rocket design, I suggest encouraging people to keep things simple, such that structural failures - which aren't handled at all realistically - aren't an issue.

And indeed, once the course gets into more advanced aspects of gravitation, you can talk about how KSP uses the patched conics approximation and thus can't model certain trajectories.

Good ideas! Adding NEAR is probably also good idea, but then I might have to add fairings, and that might get too complicated. I'll probably add MechJeb, so they can see how well things can be done and get a readout of stats.

Can anyone else think of other mods to add?

Also, there's no reason to use the 64 bit version without a ton of mods, right?

I'll write up a post with the suggestions I'll make in the next few hours to see if you guys can come up with any other improvements/suggestions.

Let us know how it goes, TheAwer.

Of course!

[lincourtl]

Good ideas! Adding NEAR is probably also good idea, but then I might have to add fairings, and that might get too complicated. I'll probably add MechJeb, so they can see how well things can be done and get a readout of stats.

Can anyone else think of other mods to add?

NEAR

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement

KIDS

RealChutes

NRAP adjustable test weight (so very very useful)

Deadly Reentry

Distant Object

Procedural Fairings

Enhanced NavBall

Possibly Docking Port Alignment Indicator

Possibly RCS Build Aid

Kerbal Toolbar

Mechjeb for the information displays -- You can disable the other modules if you want. Also, I'm not sure but I think you might need the optional FAR support module.

I think those would provide the best balance of educational realism versus fun gameplay. If you had more time, I'd suggest Fine Print because then you'd be able to create custom contracts to support lesson objectives.

Edited September 5, 2014 by lincourtl

[cantab]

If you're just launching fairly simple ships you can probably manage without fairings. For example the Apollo CSM didn't need one except around the engine bell, only the LM needed fully enclosing in a fairing.

[lincourtl]

If you're just launching fairly simple ships you can probably manage without fairings. For example the Apollo CSM didn't need one except around the engine bell, only the LM needed fully enclosing in a fairing.

Probably. I use them a lot for satellites, which is why I included it.

[TheAwer]

snip

Wow, that's a lot of mods. As I doubt the class will have a ton of time with KSP I think they might be too many and too complex. If I can get the class to have a longer period of time those sound fantastic, though! Thanks for reminding me about KIDS though, I'll have to put that in if I have NEAR. I also haven't heard about custom contracts with Fine Print, so I'll have to check that out.

If you're just launching fairly simple ships you can probably manage without fairings. For example the Apollo CSM didn't need one except around the engine bell, only the LM needed fully enclosing in a fairing.

Right, but Apollo was designed by people who knew what they were doing, not high schoolers who don't have a clue (yet) about orbital stuff. I'll have to think about whether to use NEAR or not, and I'll probably consult the teacher about that.

[Aethon]

I'd say skip the 'design' any rocket step. You've got to speak to your audience, which is AP physics. I like the mathy answers above ( Kepler's laws of motion ).

Good luck!

[Robotengineer]

P-fairings, FAR, KER. P-Fairings because you need things to be aerodynamic. FAR, because real gravity turns are the best gravity turns. (I would disable aero-structural failures on FAR though.) KER for Delta-V read outs, as well as other fun things. As for what to do, Mun mission, direct-descent first, then Apollo style 2nd. That covers launch, orbital mechanics, and docking. Could do orbiting one day, then to the Mun the next (direct descent), then Apollo style.

[TheAwer]

Here's what I've come up to propose to the teacher. I have a couple rough plans, and I'll say that I can come up with other stuff if that's what the teacher is after.

Mods:

probably NEAR (with KIDS and fairings) - I have to be careful that this doesn’t make things too complex and confusing (i.e. rockets flipping)

MechJeb (for readouts and possibly demonstrating concepts)

KerbalEdu (If we can get the alpha)

Short plan (1 day)

Introduce KSP

Build rocket as class (or not) and class direct me when launching to orbit (will take more than 1 time without advice)

Demonstrate Kepler's 3 laws of planetary motion

Demonstrate orbital maneuvering

Demonstrate rendezvous + docking (MechJeb?)

Explain Delta-V (with MechJeb)

Maybe do Mun landing and return

Longer plan (4 days?)

Day 1 Intro to KSP

1 Class tells me how to fly a rocket I design into orbit and land

1 Break up into groups and each group design orbital rocket and orbit, land

1 Demonstrate Kepler's 3 laws

Day 2 Me demonstrate rendezvous and docking

2 Brainstorm required parts for Mun flyby mission

2 Break up into groups, design Mun flyby rocket

2 Groups fly Mun flyby mission

Day 3 Me show how to land on Mun

3 Break up into groups, make list of required parts for a Mun landing + return

3 Meet and discuss required parts

3 Groups build Mun lander and launcher

3 Groups orbit their Mun lander

3 Groups do Mun transfer, orbit

Day 4 Groups do Mun landing, plant flag, return to Mun orbit

4 Groups do Kerbin return, landing

4 Celebrate success!

Alternate (like in A Plus Physics <http://www.aplusphysics.com/projects/kerbal.html>)

day 1 - KSP basics

day 1 - me demonstrate orbit, transfer, landing, return

Challenges - varying difficulty, length, to take advantage of given time

What do you guys think of these ideas?

Edited September 5, 2014 by TheAwer

[TheAwer]

I'd say skip the 'design' any rocket step. You've got to speak to your audience, which is AP physics. I like the mathy answers above ( Kepler's laws of motion ).

Right. I love KSP, and I have a feeling this might be bad in this situation if I push building and flying over learning concepts. Hopefully the teacher is okay with doing stuff other than just the learning, but otherwise I might have to change how I'm thinking about this. The post above I wrote before reading your comment, so that's why there's the "build rocket" steps. I'll ask the teacher if I should just have prebuilt/preorbited rockets for them to use.

P-fairings, FAR, KER. P-Fairings because you need things to be aerodynamic. FAR, because real gravity turns are the best gravity turns. (I would disable aero-structural failures on FAR though.) KER for Delta-V read outs, as well as other fun things. As for what to do, Mun mission, direct-descent first, then Apollo style 2nd. That covers launch, orbital mechanics, and docking. Could do orbiting one day, then to the Mun the next (direct descent), then Apollo style.

I'm thinking I'll use NEAR (simpler, more forgiving FAR) for aerodynamics with KIDS and procedural fairings. I'll use MechJeb so I can have it do the autopilot if needed as well as for the readings. I like your ideas for activities, but to keep it fun I think we will either have to have the kids fly the rockets. If we do do that I'll need to figure out a way to make sure they all land safely (or use MechJeb? hmm). Also, doing one mission to Minmus and then the other to the Mun would make it more varied, as well as demonstrating plane changes and different surface gravity.

I'll be back on tomorrow.

[Wanderfound]

If you're just launching fairly simple ships you can probably manage without fairings. For example the Apollo CSM didn't need one except around the engine bell, only the LM needed fully enclosing in a fairing.

Absolutely.

I use FAR and DR; I don't use fairings. No objection to them, but I had some bug issues with PF just after .24 came out and never got back into the habit.

Streamline and strut, small landers with nosecones and decent structural integrity. Pop the nosecones off with decouplers once you're in orbit.

No real reason not ​to use fairings, though.

[lincourtl]

Wow, that's a lot of mods. As I doubt the class will have a ton of time with KSP I think they might be too many and too complex. If I can get the class to have a longer period of time those sound fantastic, though! Thanks for reminding me about KIDS though, I'll have to put that in if I have NEAR. I also haven't heard about custom contracts with Fine Print, so I'll have to check that out.

Haha. Can you believe I thought of a few more in the interim, like Advanced Jet Engine?

I completely understand. Your question, and the recent flare up of the realism debates, got me to thinking about what my idealized list would be while still dancing on the razor's edge of fun versus realism. Sort of KSP: Edu Mode. If I were king, there'd be a curriculum to go along with it too. But at some point it stops being supplemental to education, and starts becoming engineering boot camp.

[yongedevil]

Why not guide the students towards good rocket designs and flight planning by having them run some experiments?

Students could experiment with single stage rockets with different liftoff thrust to weight ratios and see which ones lift the rocket the highest or deliver the most mass to orbit if pilot variance can be dealt with.

Others could experiment with multiple staging. Experiments can be done both on the number of stages and on comparing parallel, sequential, and asparagus staging. This offers the students opportunity to use the rocket equation and learn why delta-v changes with each configuration. They can also do calculations to compare with experiments (if the rockets can be tested free of gravity and drag which would confuse the calculations).

Another experiment could compare accent profiles. Have students compare making more or less aggressive gravity turns. This would depend a lot on piloting ability so maybe only try it if some students have played KSP before and think they can do so. Alternatively mechjeb could be used.

Afterwards the data from all groups can be presented to the whole class and the students then challenged to put the results to use designing their own rockets. Have the top performing rockets’ designers explain how they used what they learned from the experiments to design their rockets.

KSP would be great to reinforce what students have learnt about energy too. The orbital velocity and energy level of different circular orbits should be simple for the students to calculate, but the Oberth effect isn’t so obvious. Have the students try different orbital transfers including a direct Hohmann transfer, a multi-stage Hohmann transfer with intermediate circular orbits, and a bi-elliptic transfer. Maybe some of them will be bright enough to catch onto why although the energy difference between orbits is always the same the delta-v requirements are not.

After explaining the Oberth, the students can be challenged to figure out and test to confirm when a bi-elliptic transfer becomes more efficient than a Hohmann.

There’s also a lot of other interesting related orbital maneuvers including bi-elliptic plane changes, and transferring between two eccentric orbits (compare Hohmann transferes apoapsis to periapsis and periapsis to apoapsis), and changing the longitude of periapsis (compare using a single radial in or out burn to using a pair of prograde/retrograde burns to convert to a temporary circular orbit then back to elliptical, also compare doing so at the apoapsis and periapsis).

[TheAwer]

Haha. Can you believe I thought of a few more in the interim, like Advanced Jet Engine?

I completely understand. Your question, and the recent flare up of the realism debates, got me to thinking about what my idealized list would be while still dancing on the razor's edge of fun versus realism. Sort of KSP: Edu Mode. If I were king, there'd be a curriculum to go along with it too. But at some point it stops being supplemental to education, and starts becoming engineering boot camp.

Yeah. I also realized that although I'm used to the more stock game, the students aren't and don't have to play that way. That means that there's no real reason to not use mods like Realism Overhaul and RSS. For that matter, there don't even have to be any stock parts! However, I do have to be careful that it isn't too hard for beginners. I personally don't play with RO or RSS, but from what I've heard it's really tough.

Why not guide the students towards good rocket designs and flight planning by having them run some experiments?

snip

Great ideas!

[TheAwer]

Okay, I just had the meeting with the teacher. However, due to the stupid school computer (admin required), I was unable to launch KSP to show him. Despite this confounding my plans, I did show him a trailer and give him some background on the game. I explained about the mods and how the realism/difficulty can be changed. I'll try to arrange another time when I can bring in my computer to actually show him the game. He said he will think about it. He has scheduled everything for the next unit, but he might be able to do it sometime or do it after the exam.

I also left him with a few links, including to this thread (hello, said teacher! ) as well as to the A Plus Physics site (he actually already knew about that site).

[SRV Ron]

Back in the early 80s, when Apple Computers ruled, My nephew invited me to bring in my Amiga to his elementary school computer lab. (They even had an RGB projector.) The teacher and the class had a blast with what that computer was capable of especially how fast D-Paint could play with brushes and the music composition program that used actual,voice tracks.

Given the political climate of today with the Feds micromanaging the curriculum and the Common Core agenda, it may be nearly impossible for your teacher to incorporate KSP into the classroom experience. I doubt that I could even be allowed to set up such a demonstration in today's public school climate even if it was my own kid attending that class. If so, don't give up. You may be able to work with that teacher to set up an after school club activity for students interested in using KSP.

Edited September 5, 2014 by SRV Ron

[Franklin]

Given the political climate of today with the Feds micromanaging the curriculum and the Common Core agenda, it may be nearly impossible for your teacher to incorporate KSP into the classroom experience. I doubt that I could even be allowed to set up such a demonstration in today's public school climate even if it was my own kid attending that class. If so, don't give up. You may be able to work with that teacher to set up an after school club activity for students interested in using KSP.

Don't get all tinfoil hat on him, I don't think he'll have a problem demoing some orbital logic game in a class. He's not trying to pass off GTA V as a learning tool. And the dust-up over Common Core swings from libertarian and conservative bodies and nobody who's really taken to understand the curriculum requirements. It's a non-issue.

Of course I'm Canadian, though, so perhaps I'm just colouring American sensibilities too kindly.

[lincourtl]

Grr. Stupid school computers. I'm glad you at least were able to present him with some info though.

I truly think, even in its stock form, KSP has tremendous educational potential. Until TeacherGaming releases the edu version of the game though, it's sort of DIY time for educators wanting to use it. Integrating anything into an existing curriculum (especially one as rigid and time constrained as the AP curricula are) can be challenging.

Note for Mystery Teacher X who might be reading this thread: KerbalEdu, the branch of TeacherGaming which is developing the edu version of KSP, offers steeply discounted KSP licenses for educators, and you get the edu version of KSP for free whenever it's released. http://www.kerbaledu.com/#!purchase/ck0q

Also, here's how one AP Physics teacher used KSP supplemental to his regular course: http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1jcnyl/when_ksp_is_used_in_an_ap_physics_classroom/cbdbuxs

Edited September 5, 2014 by lincourtl

[TheAwer]

Update: I think I'll have another meeting tomorrow with the teacher (with my computer) to actually boot KSP and show him.

I'll only use MechJeb. Even though I've not entirely figured out what I'll do, I'm thinking get him to try to get into orbit with a stock rocket/one I design. Then I'll show him, using MechJeb, some of the more advanced things. I'll probably have MechJeb run a Apollo replica mission (with the Munbug XI assuming my computer can handle it).

Also, this isn't a public school in America, so we don't have to worry about those issues.