LEX ASTRA ACADEMY CT 320 / Mission design and operational risk Lex Astra · Command Studies programme Teaching edition 2956.3 / Tabletop ———————————————————————————————————————————————— LEARNER WORKSHEET For command candidates writing resource-aware operation plans. This is a private working copy. Downloading submits nothing and records no completion. Use exercise identifiers, not private player information. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— SESSION DETAILS Learner identifier: ____________________________________________________________ Instructor / assessor: ____________________________________________________________ Session date / agreed role or variant: ____________________________________________________________ Vessel, configuration and equipment: ____________________________________________________________ LIVE build / capability test date / tested by (if practical): ____________________________________________________________ Stop signal / recovery contact / communication arrangement: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— PURPOSE Design an operation with a measurable result, checked dependencies and clear decisions to hold or stop. COURSE CONTEXT The command programme tests whether a plan remains usable when the promised resources are removed, not whether the briefing sounds decisive. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— ENTRY Complete: CT 301 One completed specialist certificate or an independently approved equivalent outcome portfolio, with evidence reference and reviewer. Reasoned command recommendation or independent entry review; no insider sponsor is required. Equipment: The case operation and available-resource list. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CASE: A backup that depends on the same ship 1. The objective is to move six case units to an accepting receiver. 2. The main plan uses Vessel A. The proposed backup also requires Vessel A. 3. Vessel A withdraws before launch. Vessel B is available for three units, subject to receiving acceptance. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND GAME SKILLS Plan branches around flight, ground and medical limits Practical instruction revision 1 / 9 October 2026 Reconnoitre the mission chain Check approach, landing, ground access, work area and departure in sequence. A good landing zone can still leave the team unable to reach the objective. Verify that every participant has the required mission and that the selected ship can lift the planned load. Record any route leg that depends on a single ramp, elevator or receiver. Write triggers that operators can observe Use events such as an unresolvable trespass warning, loss of vertical support, a blocked casualty route or an unsuitable medical tier. Pair each with a specific action: hold, move to the alternate, reduce the task or withdraw. Avoid vague triggers like “if things become dangerous,” which different crew members will interpret differently. Rehearse the branch before relying on it Walk or fly the alternate access with a small team and test the communications fallback. Two routes using the same broken lift are not independent alternatives. Check the fuel and crew capacity remaining when the branch would actually be invoked. A workable cancellation can be the correct contingency when no independent recovery route exists. PRACTICAL DRILL Plan a lawful ground-support sortie with primary and alternate extraction. Rehearse the alternate, then inject one explicit access or handling limitation and execute the corresponding branch. OBSERVED-SKILL CHECKS The plan covers both vehicle and ground access. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ Each trigger has a named observer and an executable response. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ The alternate survives the specific failure it is intended to address. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ Apply the technical checks in the agreed role. Discussion and simulation do not certify live handling; Crew Support evidence does not confer Pilot qualification. GAME REFERENCES The linked pages were read for this revision. Community references mix release eras; each source note identifies what is used and what is excluded. Technical explanations below are an Academy synthesis, and drills and performance checks are Academy-designed. Before practice, compare the named actions with the installed LIVE build and actual equipment. Bind actions by name rather than copying old default keys. Research is not an in-game validation. Star Citizen Wiki — Defend Occupants https://starcitizen.tools/Defend_Occupants A specific lawful bunker mission, shared access, allied NPCs and friendly-fire consequences. Other contracts have different conditions. Squad drills below are Academy teaching methods, not claimed game rules. Star Citizen Wiki — Controls https://starcitizen.tools/Guide:Controls Control categories, movement axes and targeting concepts. The page contains legacy bindings and flight-system descriptions; use the installed game’s bindings, not its key table. Star Citizen Wiki — Medical https://starcitizen.tools/Medical Body-part injuries, Hemozal, symptom medication, BDL, bed tiers and regeneration. Ship tables, resource costs and ranges change; inspect the actual bed and tool. Star Citizen Wiki — Quantum drive https://starcitizen.tools/Quantum_travel Spooling, calibration, obstructions, orbital markers and interdiction. Its proposed quantum-boosting section is not used as a live procedure. Official LIVE release check: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 1: Define a result the crew can recognize State what must reach whom, by which condition, and who authorizes the task. Avoid objectives such as “ensure success” that cannot guide a completion decision. Include what the operation is not being asked to do. Describe completion from the receiver’s perspective. “Deliver the load” becomes testable when the brief identifies the consignment, accepting role and condition of receipt. Add explicit exclusions so a transport task does not expand into an unbriefed rescue, escort or recovery commitment merely because the crew encounters another need. Practise: Write the mission objective and completion condition. Ready when: The objective is observable and the stated authority covers its scope. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 2: Check the plan’s dependencies List the people, equipment, route and receiving capacity the plan requires. Mark each confirmed or unconfirmed and name who is checking it. Test the backup plan too: it is not a backup if it depends on the same unavailable vessel. Look for common dependencies between the primary and alternate plans. Two destinations may rely on the same unavailable receiver; two vessels may need the same absent pilot. A contingency is independent only to the extent that it survives the failure being considered. Where none exists, define a controlled hold or cancellation. Practise: Draw the dependency list for the main and alternate plans. Ready when: Each essential dependency has evidence or a specific contingency and owner. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 3: Pair every major risk with an action Choose the condition that triggers holding, diverting, reducing scope or stopping. Name who decides and who must be told. Revisit those conditions before launch rather than treating a risk list as permission to continue regardless. Distinguish the likelihood of a problem from the consequence of being unable to respond. A rare failure may still require a firm stop condition when recovery is unavailable. For each material risk, name the observation that triggers action, the authorised decision and the person who confirms the crew received it. Practise: Revise the plan after a critical resource is lost. Ready when: The revision applies the agreed limit and assigns a feasible response. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— WORKED DECISION Reception has not confirmed capacity. Command sets a hold condition and checks an alternate receiver instead of listing “reception pending” without an action. 1. Mark both the main plan and supposed backup unavailable. Explain the shared dependency rather than counting them as two options. 2. Check whether a three-unit movement meets a useful reduced objective and what happens to the remaining three. 3. Seek the authorized reduced-scope decision and receiver’s acceptance, or hold. Publish the new stop conditions before the crew launch. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR EXERCISE Produce the mission brief and dependency list, then revise them after A withdraws. Identify the authority approving any reduced objective. WHAT CHANGES A critical resource is withdrawn before launch. My decision and reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR WORKING RECORD Objective / completion condition / approving authority ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Dependency / confirmation / alternative / owner ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Trigger / hold or stop action / revised scope ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CHECK YOUR REASONING Your alternate plan uses the same unavailable transport. What is missing? My answer before consulting the explanation: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— EVIDENCE TO KEEP An operation brief, dependency list and revised decision. Criterion 1: The objective is observable and the stated authority covers its scope. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 2: Each essential dependency has evidence or a specific contingency and owner. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 3: The revision applies the agreed limit and assigns a feasible response. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS AND NEXT ATTEMPT Demonstrated: observed work meets the criterion. Further practice required: an observed gap needs a specific practice task. Interrupted: conditions prevented valid assessment; not a failure. Not assessed: enough evidence has not yet been collected. All three criteria need individual evidence. A team result or quiz cannot replace an unobserved practical. Practice variant for a fresh attempt: Withdraw the receiver rather than the vessel. Require a checked receiving alternative or an explicit hold. My next practice task: ____________________________________________________________ Review contact: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— COMPARE AFTER ANSWERING An independent way to meet the task, a reduced task or a decision to wait. Renaming the original dependency does not make it a contingency. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— READING INTO PRACTICE (SUPPLEMENTARY) ATP 3-21.8 · Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad · United States Army (11 January 2024) Read: Chapter 2, Section II: Troop Leading Procedures. Focus on the warning order, tentative plan, reconnaissance, orders and supervision. Send a warning order early enough for the crew to prepare: task, departure point, expected timings and equipment. Refine the plan as reports arrive. Rehearse the difficult transition rather than reading the entire brief aloud again. CREW EXERCISE Plan a pickup from a moon outpost with one transport and two escorts. Send the warning order before choosing the final approach. Ask one pilot to check the landing area. Brief loading, cover, departure and an alternate pickup. Then remove one escort from the available crew and revise the plan before launch. DEBRIEF What can the crew prepare before the final order? ____________________________________________________________ Which report would make you change the landing plan? ____________________________________________________________ Rehearse the call that stops boarding and orders withdrawal. Who needs to acknowledge it? ____________________________________________________________ APPLYING THE SOURCE Troop leading procedures organise preparation; infantry formations and weapon effects are not ship tactics. Check the actual approach, transport capacity and available landing area in the session. This discussion exercise adds no completion requirements; use the course assessment criteria above. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— SOURCE AND EDITION Case CT–2: relieving an unavailable commander /academy/archives/watch-relief-case Command Studies case issued by CDR Maren Haldorsen in 2956. The course variants develop its test: can the next leader continue without access to the original planner’s private assumptions? The lessons are current Academy teaching, not newly discovered historical records. Lex Astra opened in 2891. Historical sources keep their original issuer and date; all case callsigns, quantities, times and conditions are supplied for practice. Course text revised 8 October 2026; fictional teaching edition 2956.3. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES Instruction revised 9 October 2026. Lex Astra cases supply the teaching situations. Professional references inform communication, decision-making and instructional design; they do not confer external qualifications. LIVE capabilities remain subject to the recorded session check. FAA · crew resource management (2004 reference) https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-51E.pdf FEMA · objective-led exercises and improvement https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/exercises/hseep ———————————————————————————————————————————————— INSTRUCTOR CHECK Try the exercise with the ship and equipment you will use. Brief station assignments, callsigns, channel and recovery point. Explain the command “Stop exercise” before starting. If a bug prevents completion, repeat the affected task when it works. Ask before recording the session; use player handles in your notes. Review rules: /academy/archives/academy-ordinance Teaching basis: /academy/framework#research