KSP in the schools

[If You Had Wings]

Greetings from Florida's Space Coast. I'm working on a grad school report on the use of space science-related simulations/interactive online activities that are or might be used in a school setting. My brief paper will focus on KSP, which I finally tried out this past weekend and earlier today finally got my first capsule into orbit (with no way to get it back, of course, but now I have a new goal...).

My question to all of you is would you recommend this for use in the schools? If so, what's the earliest age/grade would it be useful for? And if you are a teacher, what general words of wisdom would you offer about KSP in the classroom?

Many thanks for your advice and counsel.

Jim Banke

Cape Canaveral, Fla.

[lincourtl]

Hi Jim,

I remember reading some of your articles for Florida Today and Space.com.

I'm sure you're aware of Kerbal Edu (http://www.kerbaledu.com). I know there are professional educators right here who can help you in detail, but the Kerbal Edu team would be a good resource too. They're doing some great work, plus I believe they have a group of educators providing feedback. You might want to see if you can interview some of them as well.

On edit: You might also want to make inquiries at the Orbiter forums: http://www.orbiter-forum.com

[How2FoldSoup]

Honestly? From the age kids can begin to read and do math. To them it would be a game about building things and having fun much like minecraft. However, if they continue playing it as they grow up some will become curious and want to know how to do certain things and take it further. At least, that's how I optimistically see KSP being used as an education tool. Today, we say what happens in space is very counter intuitive to our every day lives and experiences. It is, but starting this sort of game play early in life could begin a generation who intuitively understood space and had an extra drive to explore the cosmos since they had done it from the beginning of their educated lives.

That's my opinion anyways - I love this game and if/when I have a child they will definitely be playing it from a young age as well be taught all sorts of things a young child shouldn't have to be taught(like advanced math and science)

[Axelord FTW]

As long as it is made clear that while KSP is a good learning tool, it is not exactly a good representation of real life physics in many aspects.

In some ways it's pretty dead on with minimal simplification but in other it is barely even sensible.

And most of us has seen this;

It's a good representation of the teaching factor of Kerbal Space Program.

Still, even forgetting about what KSP is, it still teach about coordination, planing and maths.

As for KSP being in school, I'd say no to it as a straight teaching tool. Now, if an assignment was given about it (or a free assignment about something like science or physics or video games, etc.) it would be totally fine. If a teacher could recommend a game for his class, KSP would be a good candidate.

EDIT: Clarification;

In short, KSP is a good learning tool but not a teaching tool.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Axelord FTW

[Franklin]

You should ask regex here what he thinks.

edit: My short answer is no though, as someone with hundreds of hours logged. Anyone who understands the actual math and logistics involved in spaceflight would wince at KSP. I understand it's for kids, and they need a simplified starting point, but it should be simplified correctly, not just simplified. KSP skimps out on a lot of important elements in spaceflight and exploration.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Franklin

[GregA]

No. I like KSP don't get me wrong. But as a teaching tool it would be mildly better than an XBox in the classroom, and not quite as good as a field trip to a local park to meet the park service employees...

[Draemora]

It's good for the basics. What is DV, why you burn sideways and not up, how to get to other bodies, orbital speed not depending on mass, etc. It's a great hand-on tool to FEEL these things. Nevertheless, it doesn't model gravity properly. For example, the planets are on rails, Lagrange points don't exist, the aerodynamics are really shoddy, etc.

[technicalfool]

Given that the height of educational software back when I were a wee nipper was something like Granny's Garden for the BBC Micro?

Oh yes. Definitely yes. For the younger kids, kindergarten age, just throw them a computer and let them play. Done good in your lessons? Choose from a set of rewards, one of which is an hour of blowing Kerbals up with randomly-built but cool-looking monstrosities.

For the more older kids who show an interest, you can try constructing missions. See if anybody can replicate Apollo, or maybe include it as a practical part of a math lesson that goes into equations used in rocket science. Or maybe as the culmination of a history lesson on the space race. Want to know how hard it is to parallel-park two missiles going hypersonic speeds above a planet? Here's a save file with a Gemini capsule in space... go and dock with it. Or try to.

And of course, already mentioned is the KerbalEdu project, which I think aims to add a lot of the mission-building and other stuff into the game and make it easy for teachers to set up and use.

[NathanKell]

I hate to semi-self-plug, but it's worth considering realism mods if you're going to use it to teach. See the Realism Overhaul thread (sig), which gives parts real life stats, and uses various other mods to make KSP as close to real performance as we can make it (obviating most of Franklin's concerns). Here's an example album from one of our users. From much older versions of the mod suite, here's RISAT-1 and Cassini-Huygens (Note that while planet names cannot yet be changed, all details are correct).

That said, even KSP unmodded is a great teaching tool for (Keplerian) orbital mechanics; as the cartoon indicates, it's great for showing you exactly "what will happen if I do this?" in orbit.

Edited October 22, 2014 by NathanKell

[Claw]

Personally I have also used KSP to teach the basics of aero such as "what happens if I put control fins on top, versus the bottom of a rocket" to 6 to 8 year olds. Some of them understand well enough that a weather vane, arrow, or dart flies into the wind, but they have no idea why. Being able to do something like move fins around in game and press go is both exciting and provides instant feedback to them. (Plus the explosions are always fun.)

At this age they generally seem to grasp the idea of slapping together and launching a rocket, but the getting to orbit part certainly takes a LOT more hands on teaching.

The amount of realism you need probably depends on the educational goals and how far you need to carry on in the game. The current state of the game's aerodynamics model needs more work, but the basics of orbital mechanics are pretty descent if you're able to explain the concept of a patched conics model vs. n-body gravity.

Cheers,

~Claw

Edited October 22, 2014 by Claw

[Hattivat]

I'd say it depends on what you want to teach them. Overall, I'd say stock KSP is really bad at simulating (and thus, teaching about) all the things that happen between the ground and low Earth (ok, Kerbin in this case) orbit, but pretty good at simulating (and thus, teaching about) everything that happens in LEO and beyond it.

Inside the atmosphere, KSP is counter-intuitive in the wrong ways. That is, it contradicts child's intuitions in places where these intuitions are actually correct, which is obviously counter-productive in a teaching tool (examples: square rockets flying better than streamlined ones, reentry flames doing no damage whatsoever to the craft). Outside of the atmosphere, KSP can be remarkably good at developing an intuitive understanding of complex orbital mechanics in the player, even if that player has experience with graduate-level physics, as illustrated by Randall Munroe. Whether or not this is something we want/need grade schoolers to learn is another question.

There is one undeniably useful thing though that KSP is excellent at, and that is sparking interest in space exploration. So while it may not be great at transmitting correct and useful knowledge to the kids by itself, it certainly can make the kids much more interested in actual lessons that do transmit it.

oh, and @Nathankell, in reply to your question elsewhere: Of course I don't mind, actually quite the opposite - I'm honored to be linked as a positive example

[BagelRabbit]

I would very strongly recommend Rocksim for teaching about in-atmosphere rocket design. It's not quite as fun as KSP (and is obviously not a "game"), but it's still really very understandable and you can play around quite a bit. In Rocksim, you can model very complex model rockets and determine precisely what they would do in real life. It has aerodynamics better than KSP's FAR, it's got a lovely two-dimensional flight screen, and it gives you all the data that you will ever need, from the drag coefficient and CG/CP relationships to advanced concepts such as longitudinal moment of inertia and Reynolds number. At the end of the day, you can even build your rocket and fly it in real life!

Here's a link if you want to learn more.

That being said, KSP is a great way to inspire the little ones about spaceflight. It may never be as realistic as it could (especially with this new Kerbal XP system ) but it gets general concepts across in a very engaging way. Once you're in space, the program is pretty good about depicting spaceflight. There are some notable inaccuracies, but KSP informs much more than it misinforms, especially when compared to movies, TV shows, and the like.

[r_rolo1]

I do use ( stock ) KSP in my Physics tutoring of high school or below kids, but I am well aware of the limitations it has. Namely, anything that you do inside of a atmosphere or while driving on a planetary surface has bits of non-RL physics lurking everywhere and they can make people to unlearn what they did knew about RL. But as long as you keep yourself in orbit, it is a quite intuitive tool to explain physics ...

Edited October 22, 2014 by r_rolo1

[If You Had Wings]

Thanks to everyone who replied. You gave me the range of comments I expected, and I very much appreciate it. And no, lincourtl, I wasn't aware of the KerbalEdu site so I am off to look at that now. And thanks for remembering my work from so long ago. Today I am a recovering journalist -- "Hi, my name is Jim. My last story was in 2004" -- but I do continue to write for various clients, including NASA.

Kerbal looks like something I will easily get addicted to.

[lincourtl]

Today I am a recovering journalist -- "Hi, my name is Jim. My last story was in 2004" -- but I do continue to write for various clients, including NASA.

Haha. Aren't we all. I haven't worked as a journalist since 1993, unless you count my online stuff, and it's still in my blood.

[Roastduck]

I think KSP would have the most impact on high school physics classes as kind of an end-of-exams project. At least in America, science and math can sometimes be taught in a very abstract sense. "Here's this equation you need to know, but we're not going to tell you what it's used for." Physics, though, has a lot of equations with very real consequences if the variables are off. "Here's the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. Look what happens to the d-V as we change this or that variable." With KSP, you're able to receive instant feedback on the results of these changes. One goal I had set for myself recently was to design a rocket in Realism Overhaul that would put a satellite into geosynchronous orbit, but calculate and plot all the orbits by hand. I think this is something a good AP Physics class could pull off in the 4-6 weeks between their exams and the end of the school year.

[Javster]

You can teach very basic stuff, stuff that's on the curriculum (hopefully, I have no clue about the education system in the US) like forces with KSP, but orbital mechanics are what makes this game stand out, but it's far beyond what most schools teach.

[NFUN]

You should ask regex here what he thinks.

edit: My short answer is no though, as someone with hundreds of hours logged. Anyone who understands the actual math and logistics involved in spaceflight would wince at KSP. I understand it's for kids, and they need a simplified starting point, but it should be simplified correctly, not just simplified. KSP skimps out on a lot of important elements in spaceflight and exploration.

I've noticed that you say that a lot. Out of curiosity, and to help answer the original question, what issues do you have with the physics of the game, besides the awful aerodynamics and lack of n-body physics*?

*and realism often cured by mods, such as the terrifyingly high density of the planets (or different gravitational constant), life support, etc.

[If You Had Wings]

Thanks, I know Rocksim and its author very well. TVM and I went to school together. For the purposes of introducing students, most likely in the Middle School range, I think KSP has enough of the pieces and entertainment value (despite all the atmospheric physics issues that everyone is so quick to point out) for introducing spaceflight in general that I am liking it more and more each day.

[rkman]

KSP skimps out on a lot of important elements in spaceflight and exploration.

I think the intended role for KSP as educational software is not so much to teach about spaceflight and exploration generally (including logistics) even though some of that comes into play, but specifically to teach about Newtonian and orbital mechanics.

[Bishop149]

Inside the atmosphere, KSP is counter-intuitive in the wrong ways. That is, it contradicts child's intuitions in places where these intuitions are actually correct, which is obviously counter-productive in a teaching tool (examples: square rockets flying better than streamlined ones, reentry flames doing no damage whatsoever to the craft). Outside of the atmosphere, KSP can be remarkably good at developing an intuitive understanding of complex orbital mechanics in the player, even if that player has experience with graduate-level physics, as illustrated by Randall Munroe. Whether or not this is something we want/need grade schoolers to learn is another question.

I'd go with this, inside the atmosphere KSP is probably not a good teaching aid because the areodynmaic model it uses is better optimized for having fun / playing around with rather than realism and unlike many here I don't have a huge problem with this,

Having said that whilst the aerodynamics are all wrong the process of getting a rocket to orbit is moderately accurate, things like optimal ascent profiles, the way engine efficiencies work, effect of atmosphere density with altitude, the difference between rockets and space planes in terms of ascent profile. . . all things that KSP can very well get the jist of across whilst not being actually realistic about it.

Once in space however I think it become more useful, even as a scientist I didn't really understand basic orbital mechanics until started playing KSP. I know its all a simplification because KSP doesn't simulate the gravitational effects of multiple bodies at the same time, but who really expects kids to start struggling with n-body physics and making such simplification for teaching at lower levels is hardly anything new (see the incredibly simplistic "electron shells" taught in chemistry at high school level)

[AgentMOO]

Q:Would you recommend this for use in the schools?

A: I would, yes.

Q:What's the earliest age/grade would it be useful for?

A:IMHO since Kerbals blow up.. around eight or older. The content may upset younger, or more sensitive, children. So... according to this chart grade 3

Q:If you are a teacher, what general words of wisdom would you offer about KSP in the classroom?

A:I would start with this.

Edited October 23, 2014 by AgentMOO