The 42nd Period | STEM Education Hub

🎯 Deliverable

Both parts are required — a pitch with only one half is incomplete:

✏️ Design Sketch

A labeled drawing of your instrument — type (lens, mirror, or dish), rough aperture, and, if relevant, its location (ground site or in orbit).

📄 Written Justification

The science question, the wavelength/location/aperture reasoning behind your design, and a defense against at least one alternative.

📋 Content Checklist

Every item below has to show up somewhere in your pitch — check them off as you go.

A specific science question — not "study space," but something a real instrument could actually targetThe chosen wavelength range, and why that range (not another) reveals the thing you're afterThe chosen location — ground-based, dry mountaintop, or space — justified by atmospheric transmissionThe chosen telescope type and aperture, justified by light-gathering and resolving-power needsAn explicit defense of why at least one alternative instrument or wavelength would not have worked

📅 Day-by-Day Plan

Day 1

Pick a Question, Research the Match

Choose your science question first — specific, not generic. Use the Deep Dive plus Activities 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 to work out which wavelength, location, and telescope design actually fit it.

Day 2

Sketch & Draft the Justification

Draw your instrument first — it usually clarifies the writing that follows. Draft the written justification, making sure every design choice traces back to something specific about your science question.

Day 3

Defend & Submit

Add the comparative defense: name a real alternative and explain exactly why it falls short. Trade with a partner for a quick sanity check, then finalize and submit both pieces together.

📊 Grading Rubric — 100 pts

A starting point — adjust weights to fit your class before assigning.

Category	Weight	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Incomplete
Science Question & Instrument Match	30 pts	A specific, well-defined science question, clearly matched to a wavelength range that could actually answer it.	Question is reasonably specific; wavelength match is mostly sound.	Question is vague or generic; wavelength choice is only loosely justified.	No clear science question, or an unworkable wavelength match.
Technical Justification	30 pts	Correctly applies aperture/light-gathering, resolving power, atmospheric windows, and location — together, not in isolation.	Applies most of these correctly; one factor is thin or missing.	Technical reasoning contains a real misconception (e.g., aperture 'fixing' an atmospheric blocking problem).	No real technical justification given.
Comparative Defense	20 pts	Explicitly explains why at least one plausible alternative instrument or wavelength would not have worked as well.	Alternative is named but the reasoning for rejecting it is thin.	No real comparison — reads as "this is the only option I considered."	No alternative discussed at all.
Design Sketch & Presentation	20 pts	Clear, labeled sketch; well-organized written justification; submitted on time.	Mostly clear and complete; minor presentation issues.	Sketch or write-up is hard to follow, or noticeably incomplete.	Not submitted.

← Back to Project 2.2.3 🔬 Review the Deep Dive →

🔭 Project 2.2.3 · Unit 2 of 6 · Single Semester