The 42nd Period | STEM Education Hub

🎯 Deliverable

Teams of three to five. Two parts, both required.

📄 Written Proposal

A 2–4 page document or a slide deck with speaker notes, covering every item on the checklist below.

🎤 Review-Panel Pitch

About 5 minutes, with every team member presenting, followed by questions from the "review panel" (the class).

👥 Team Roles

Real mission teams divide the work like this. Everyone contributes to every part, but each role owns one piece. In a smaller team, combine roles.

Principal Investigator

Leads the team; owns the science question and the final pitch.

Mission Scientist

Builds the case for the destination with evidence.

Instrument Lead

Designs the payload; ties each instrument to a measurement.

Mission Engineer

Mission type, travel time, power, budget, and risks.

Communications Lead

Designs the proposal and visuals; coordinates the pitch.

🗺️ Planning Reference

Pick a destination to see typical travel times and power options. Any destination from this unit is fair game — if your team wants somewhere not listed, clear it with your teacher.

🧊 Europa

Travel time~5–6 years

Typical powerSolar (large arrays) or nuclear

A starting questionDoes Europa's ocean have the chemical energy and ingredients life would need?

Budget classes

Small (Discovery-class)

roughly $500 million

One focused question; a lander, orbiter, or flyby with a few instruments

Medium (New Frontiers-class)

roughly $1 billion

A bigger payload or a harder destination — Dragonfly is in this class

Large (Flagship)

several billion dollars

Multiple major goals; the hardest destinations — Europa Clipper and JWST are flagships

Travel times and costs are rounded, typical values. The starting questions are just that — your team should sharpen or replace them.

🎯 From Vague to Sharp

The single biggest upgrade to any proposal. Here's a model for a destination you shouldn't copy exactly.

Vague"Study Enceladus and look for life."

Sharper"Is there enough chemical energy in Enceladus's ocean to power microbes?"

ObjectivesMeasure hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane in the plumes; measure the ocean's saltiness and pH from ice grains; map where the plumes come from.

InstrumentsMass spectrometer (gases), dust analyzer (ice grains), camera (plume sources)

Success looks likeMeasured energy levels that are (or aren't) enough for Earth's vent microbes — a result that shows habitability, not life itself.

Notice the last line: a strong proposal is honest about what its results could prove. That's the unit's third essential question, and the review panel will ask.

📋 Content Checklist

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

A mission name, destination, and team rolesWhy this destination: at least two pieces of evidence (from 6.2.1, 6.2.2, or research)One sharp science question, plus two or three measurable objectivesAn instrument payload — each instrument paired with the measurement it makesMission type, with a reason it's the simplest option that worksTimeline (launch, travel time, operations), power source, and budget classTop two risks and how you'd reduce themSuccess criteria: what results would count — and what they would and wouldn't prove

📅 Day-by-Day Plan

Day 1

Form the Team & Pick the Target

Assign roles, choose a destination, and gather evidence for it from 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Draft a science question, then sharpen it until it could actually be answered.

Day 2

Design the Mission

Set two or three measurable objectives, build the payload (instrument → measurement), and choose the mission type, power source, budget class, and timeline. List the top risks.

Day 3

Write & Rehearse

Write the proposal and build the visuals. Define success — including what your results would and wouldn't prove. Rehearse the pitch so every member presents a part.

Day 4

Face the Review Panel

Present to the class and answer the panel's questions. Afterward, each member writes a short reflection on their role and one thing the team would change.

📊 Grading Rubric — 100 pts

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

Category	Weight	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Incomplete
Science Goal & Rationale	25 pts	One sharp, answerable science question, with a destination choice backed by specific evidence (water, energy, building blocks, past discoveries).	Clear question and rationale; one piece of evidence thin.	Question vague ("learn about Europa") or destination chosen without evidence.	No science goal.
Instruments & Measurements	20 pts	Every instrument is tied to a specific measurement the question needs; nothing is included just because it's cool.	Payload works, but one instrument's purpose is unclear.	Instruments listed without explaining what they measure, or a key measurement is missing.	No payload.
Mission Design & Feasibility	20 pts	Mission type, travel time, power source, budget class, and top risks are realistic and justified.	Mostly realistic; one element unjustified.	Mission type overcomplicated or key logistics missing.	No mission design.
Success Criteria & Evidence	15 pts	Clearly states what results would count as success, and what they would and wouldn't prove about life.	Success defined, but the limits of the evidence aren't addressed.	Claims the mission will "find life" with no criteria.	Missing.
Pitch & Teamwork	20 pts	A clear, confident ~5-minute pitch; every member presents their part and fields questions; roles were shared fairly.	Solid pitch; uneven participation.	Hard to follow, or one or two members did most of the work.	Not presented.

← Back to Project 6.2.3 🔬 Review 6.2.1 →🔬 Review 6.2.2 →

🔭 Project 6.2.3 · Unit 6 of 6 · Single Semester