Abstract
My technical project and my STS research explore different fields but both help understand how engineering decisions depend on priorities and design choices built into a system. In my technical project, my team and I designed the Science (SCI) Printed Circuit Board (PCB) data acquisition board to support the HEDGE-2 CubeSat mission, demonstrating that CubeSats can be made affordable while still collecting adequate data. My STS research examined how crash‑testing standards have historically used the Hybrid III 50th‑percentile male body as the default. Together, these projects show that engineering work is shaped not only by technical requirements, but also by choices on which data matters, how it will be used, and how it improves future usage.
My technical work focused on developing the SCI PCB, which is 1 of 3 PCBs housed in the 1-U CubeSat frame inside the glider. The SCI data acquisition board samples data from at least 4 thermocouples and 4 pressure transducers at rates greater than 2 Hz, timestamps the data, and maintains a rolling buffer of more than 60 seconds to prevent data loss when the On‑Board Computer (OBC) is occupied. Additionally, the board collects housekeeping telemetry, including temperature, voltage, and current for each subsystem at 1 Hz and communicates with the OBC via RS‑485 and SpaceCAN. Overall, the design provides HEDGE‑2 with a compact and cost‑effective system for collecting flight data under extreme reentry conditions.
My STS research explores human safety by examining how car‑safety procedures have relied on crash‑test dummies modeled on the Hybrid III 50th‑percentile male body since 1986. This reliance has left women underrepresented and at greater risk during collisions, despite historical data showing that they face higher injury and fatality risks. Using the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework, I analyze Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 and the slow adoption of female‑representative crash‑test dummies. I argue that groups such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the automotive industry, and congressional safety advocates defined the problem differently, allowing the male dummy to remain dominant even as evidence showed that women faced higher risks of injury and death.
Working on both projects in the same year allowed me to explore two different engineering fields and understand how they come together to address problems and improve research. My capstone project allowed me to learn the technical side of engineering through avionics and CubeSat research, where decisions are shaped by requirements, cost, testing, communication, and reliability. On the other hand, my STS research showed me that technical decisions can persist for decades and that, even when new research highlights the need for improvement, such as in car safety, it can be difficult to adapt to new technologies due to cost, testing standards, and long‑standing procedures. Although the two projects did not directly overlap, the STS work made me more aware of how to approach my future engineering projects by focusing on user safety concerns and being more intentional about ensuring that the technology is designed to serve all users equally.
