I have been toying with a basic Lunar exploration architecture for some time. My principle goals are to do cursory surface investigations of multiple locations, providing data to allow for safe landing of large scale operations.
Any specific requirement I have used is negotiable as long as the end goal, finding places for humans to live in deep space, is advanced.
"Rovers are designed for sunlight only operations"However, the most interesting places are in permanently shaded regions...
The acronyms did not help me comprehend this. I was well through making a reply to this before I realized that you were using the Deep Space Gateway Power and Propulsion Element as your baseline for the weight and output of a solar-election propulsion unit. SEP is somewhat common and acronym but the DSG has already been renamed! And once I realized that, I then had to track down the request for information and parse the NASA requirements in order to figure out what that meant.There is a certain level of knowledge that you can expect someone to bring to the table but surely you could have made this a little bit clearer!I take it that the first piece of your idea is something like this:1) Space tug - (similar technology to the now renamed Deep Space Gateway Power and Propulsion Element)-Ion engines powered by solar panels-50 kW of power from the solar panels-1.4 Newtons of thrust (my estimate)-2000 kilograms of Xenon fuel-ISP above 4000-Life support for crew (how many?)-Room for 2400 kilograms of lunar samplesI need to hit the hay but I think it would be interesting to compare the solar-election ion approach to a liquid hydrogen approach (with or without lunar oxygen).Edit:Okay, what is a D1? I can't really parse this.
"My principle goals are to do cursory surface investigations of multiple locations, providing data to allow for safe landing of large scale operations."Study each site to make sure you can land on it safely? You can do that with orbital data. Study your 144 sites using the best images, topo maps, composition data, all of which is already freely available. Derive a shortlist of 10 sites and study them with your rovers. Costs 10% of what you are suggesting.
"What I don't know exists is orbital data that provides the fine details to avoid all potential hazards. "Almost global imaging at 0.5 to 2 m/pixel, usually with multiple lighting conditions. Really, you don't need to worry about locating hazards - also smart landers (e.g Chang'e 3) can view the surface underneath them during a low hover phase and select a safe location automatically - already demonstrated.
though those sites would be pretty close together if they are going to be studied in 6 months.
10% ?? You suggested 144 sites, I suggested picking the best 10. 10/144 is 10%, right? However, I had missed your point about just 12 rovers, each one looking at multiple sites, so that's not really such a big saving after all. Sorry about that....But my real point is that the data for site selection is already available and it would be foolish to spend lots of money on surface observations when so much is freely available. Hire a planetary science grad student to do a GIS analysis of the available data long before you plan to send rovers.
Almost global imaging at 0.5 to 2 m/pixel, usually with multiple lighting conditions.