Attitude Control & Pointing
Gentle vs Aggressive Control
Compare two controller tunings: a gentle low-gain response vs an aggressive high-gain response.
- Time estimate
- 30–35 min
- Complexity
- advanced
- Maturity
- pilot ready
- Simulator readiness
- implemented
- Software available now
- Available now in one-axis simulator — `gentle_vs_aggressive_control` with replay/compare.
Student path
- Review the side-by-side comparison table for gentle vs aggressive control.
- Identify which setting uses more wheel effort and why that matters for power.
- Choose a mission scenario and write a one-sentence recommendation.
- Copy/export your evidence — local-only, teaching model, not real spacecraft PID.
Learning outcomes
Student can compare settling time, overshoot, and wheel effort for gentle and aggressive control settings.
- Define the trade-off between settling speed and overshoot.
- Identify which setting uses more wheel effort and why this matters for power.
- Recommend a setting for a contact-window mission scenario and justify the choice.
Concept primer
Compare two controller tunings: a gentle low-gain response vs an aggressive high-gain response.
Run gentle_vs_aggressive_control experiment; compare overshoot and wheel effort in replay.
Fill a comparison table: overshoot, settling time, wheel effort for gentle vs aggressive.
Interactive lab
Teaching-grade software activity slot — not a flight simulator or certified propagator.
PID tuning comparison lab
Gentle vs Aggressive: 10° step command
| Metric | Gentle (low gain) | Aggressive (high gain) |
|---|---|---|
| Overshoot | 2% | 28% |
| Settling | Slow settle (≥30 s) | Fast but oscillatory (<10 s, overshoots) |
| Wheel effort | Low wheel effort | High wheel effort |
| Stability | Stable — slow but smooth | Oscillatory — may not settle acceptably |
Key concept
Aggressive control is faster but costs more wheel torque (power) and risks overshooting the target. Gentle control is slower but smoother and kinder on actuators and battery. The right choice depends on mission priority, available power, and acceptable settling time.
Local self-check
Assessment (practice only)
Use this as a self-check and discussion starter. It is local-only and not a grade.
Optional: attaches a local summary (completed / quick checks / checklist count).
Quick check
Multiple choice self-check
This is a local self-check to support discussion. It is not a grade.
Quick check: Higher wheel effort in aggressive mode is a concern because...
Discussion prompt
Short answer (local only)
Write notes for yourself or your group. Nothing is submitted.
Reflection: For a contact-window prep manoeuvre, when would you accept slower settling to protect power and wheel life?
Checklist
Local checklist self-check
Use this to verify you covered key ideas. Nothing is submitted.
Self-check:
0 / 3 checked
Local summary
Assessment summary (practice only)
Completion
0 / 3 sections complete
Quick checks
0 / 1 correct
Shown only to support self-check.
Checklist
0 / 3 items checked
Reminder
Local-only practice summary. Not a grade and not submitted anywhere.
What this preview is / is not
Assessment engine v0 boundary note
- Student view (local practice): use this as a self-check and discussion starter.
- Local-only preview/practice: your answers are not submitted.
- No backend, no accounts, no roster, and no LMS integration.
- Not a grade. No credential or official scoring is implied.
- Teacher visibility into student answers is not implemented in MVPF8.
- Evidence runtime engine arrives in Phase 9 (not in this preview).
Capture
Evidence capture (local-only)
Capture what you did, what changed, what you observed, and how you explain it. This stays in your browser unless you copy/share it manually.
Selected inputs
- Step size: 10°
- Gentle gain (Kp): 0.5
- Aggressive gain (Kp): 4
Generated outputs
- Gentle overshoot: 2%
- Gentle settling: Slow settle (≥30 s)
- Gentle wheel effort: Low wheel effort
- Aggressive overshoot: 28%
- Aggressive settling: Fast but oscillatory (<10 s, overshoots)
- Aggressive wheel effort: High wheel effort
Checklist
Evidence checklist
0/3 checked
Evidence artifact (local-only)
Gentle vs Aggressive Control
Captured: 2026-05-16T07:38:33.360Z · Level: high_school · Track: attitude_control
Summary
Copyable class summary
Copy a readable summary for class notes, or copy JSON for a structured record. Local-only: nothing is submitted.
Evidence artifact (v1) Activity: Gentle vs Aggressive Control Track: attitude_control Learner level: high_school Captured: 2026-05-16T07:38:33.360Z Mission brief: Side-by-side comparison: 10° step, low-gain (gentle) vs high-gain (aggressive). Selected inputs: - Step size: 10° - Gentle gain (Kp): 0.5 - Aggressive gain (Kp): 4 Generated outputs: - Gentle overshoot: 2% - Gentle settling: Slow settle (≥30 s) - Gentle wheel effort: Low wheel effort - Aggressive overshoot: 28% - Aggressive settling: Fast but oscillatory (<10 s, overshoots) - Aggressive wheel effort: High wheel effort Checklist: - [ ] I compared gentle and aggressive side-by-side in the lab. - [ ] I identified which uses more wheel effort and why that matters for power. - [ ] I can make a justified recommendation for a mission scenario. Observations: (not provided) Reflection: Gentle: 2% overshoot, Low wheel effort. Aggressive: 28% overshoot, High wheel effort. Model boundary note: Local-only teaching model — not full 3-axis flight ADCS, not a reaction-wheel safety certification, not remote hardware control, not official attitude determination software. Evidence is not submitted anywhere and is not a grade. Policy reminder: - Local-only capture. Not submitted anywhere. Not a grade.
Evidence capture
Expected outputs learners should be able to show after the lab (Phase 9 evidence engine preview available).
- Two replays with overshoot and wheel effort contrasted
- Student-written ops recommendation for contact prep
Reflection
Run two configurations back-to-back; compare charts and identify trade-offs.
Responses are not persisted in this preview unless a specific activity component adds storage later.
Assessment / quick check
When would you accept slower settling to protect power and mechanical wear?
Teacher notes
Use A/B replay to teach evidence-based tuning debates, not guesswork.
Teacher use
Use A/B comparison to teach evidence-based tuning decisions, not guesswork. Ask: which would you use for a contact-window prep manoeuvre? For routine nadir hold? These are teaching-grade gain categories — not calibrated engineering values for a flight system.
Next activity
Suggested progression from the mission learning path. Links avoid missing activity routes.