The 42nd Period | STEM Education Hub

🎯 Deliverable

Choose two worlds from Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, or the Moon. Write a habitability comparison between them, with real supporting data for every claim, ending in a clear recommendation for which is the better candidate for future human exploration — and why.

📋 Content Checklist

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

Two worlds chosen from: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, or the MoonAtmosphere & temperature comparison, using the greenhouse-effect reasoning from Activity 3.1.1Radiation shielding comparison, using the magnetic-field reasoning from Activity 3.1.1Surface stability comparison, using crater/volcanic evidence from Activity 3.1.2Gravity comparison, with a note on what that means for a long-term human presenceWater & resources comparison — where it's been found, if at allA clear final recommendation that weighs the factors together, not just one

📅 Day-by-Day Plan

Day 1

Choose & Gather Data

Pick your two worlds. Use the Deep Dive's scorecard, plus Activities 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, to pull real data for all five factors before you start writing.

Day 2

Draft the Comparison

Write the comparison factor by factor. For each one, state the data, then explain what it actually means for a human mission — data alone isn't the argument.

Day 3

Weigh & Conclude

Write your final recommendation, explicitly weighing the factors against each other. Trade with a partner for an accuracy check, then finalize and submit.

📊 Grading Rubric — 100 pts

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

Category	Weight	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Incomplete
Data Coverage	30 pts	All five factors (atmosphere, radiation shielding, surface stability, gravity, water/resources) covered for both worlds, with real numbers.	Most factors covered; one is thin or missing for one world.	Only two or three factors covered, or numbers are vague/missing.	No real data presented.
Technical Accuracy	30 pts	Correctly applies concepts from 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 (greenhouse effect, magnetic fields, crater/volcanic history) alongside the new gravity and water factors.	Mostly accurate; one concept is misapplied or oversimplified.	Contains a real misconception (e.g., ignoring the atmosphere/water trade-offs from 3.1.1).	No real application of unit concepts.
Argument & Weighing	25 pts	Clearly weighs multiple factors against each other and reaches a defensible conclusion — not a single-factor "obvious winner."	Reaches a conclusion but leans on one or two factors more than it should.	Conclusion doesn't follow from the data presented.	No real argument or conclusion.
Clarity & Process	15 pts	Well-organized, clearly written, submitted on time.	Mostly organized and on time; small issues.	Disorganized or late.	Not submitted.

← Back to Project 3.1.3 🔬 Review the Deep Dive →

🔭 Project 3.1.3 · Unit 3 of 6 · Single Semester