Launch Cost Offset
+$417.3M
Saved vs. polar basin benchmark from avoiding heavy shadow survival battery ballast.
Levelized Cost / Day (LCMD)
$4.45M / day
27 active sunlit days out of 28d. (Basin benchmark: $12.50M/day).
Capital-at-Risk (CaRI)
7.8%Minimal Risk
Max shadow: 24.2h • Slope: 6.8° (<10° Safe envelope).
DTE Comm Line-of-Sight
89.2%
Avoids ~$25M in dedicated lunar orbital relay constellation lease fees.
Interactive Techno-Economic Trade-Off Simulator
Adjust spacecraft thermal heating and science payload targets to model real-time hardware mass and launch budget optimization.
A. Planned Mission Duration28 Earth Days
7d (Quick Ingress)28d (Full Lunar Cycle)45d (Long Duration)
B. Survival Heater Draw (Shadow)120 Watts
80W (Minimal)120W (Baseline)250W (Active Lines)
C. Science Payload Target Mass45 kg
20 kg (Compact)45 kg (NASA Nominal)100 kg (Heavy Suite)
Computed Battery Mass:20.2 kg
Equivalent Launch Cost:$24.2M
Spacecraft Mass AllocationTotal ~1,200 kg
1,200 kgGross Mass
Structures & Thermal Bus: 480kg
Descent Propulsion & Tanks: 350kg
Avionics & RF Comm: 90kg
Cryo Battery Reserves: 20kg
Science Payload Package: 45kg
CAPITAL CONVERSION
Ballast-to-Science Value Transformation
By choosing Malapert Mountain (Peak), you avoid +348 kg in dead battery ballast.
Reallocated Capital Value:+$417.3M
Science Payload Capacity:45 kg (4% of lander)
*Every 1 kg of battery eliminated frees up capacity for multi-spectral spectrometers, drills, or neutron detectors without additional rocket launch fees.
Capital-at-Risk vs. Solar Illumination Curve
Dual-axis projection: Solar elevation (left, °) vs. Cumulative financial risk accumulation (right, $M).
*Whenever solar elevation dips below 0° (crater shadow), risk increases rapidly as thermal heater draw exhausts battery capacity.
Lifecycle Cost Allocation Comparison ($M)
Comparing Malapert Mountain vs. Shackleton Ridge vs. Polar Basin across cost categories.
*Polar crater floors require $441.5M in battery mass overhead alone, making low-elevation basins financially prohibitive.
Artemis Candidate Sites: Techno-Economic Sensitivity Matrix
Direct evaluation of landing site solar availability, shadow intervals, required battery reserves, and transit costs.
| Candidate Landing Site | Illumination (%) | Max Shadow (hrs) | Battery Reserve | Launch Transit Cost | Capital Risk (CaRI) | Net Efficiency Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Malapert Mountain (Peak)OPTIMAL -86.0°S, 2.9°E • Slope 6.8° | 96.4% | 24.2 h | 20.2 kg | $24.2M | 7.8% | 94.6 / 100 |
Shackleton Connecting Ridge -89.9°S, 0.0°E • Slope 8.5° | 86.0% | 94.1 h | 78.4 kg | $94.1M | 18.5% | 82.4 / 100 |
Amundsen Rim -84.5°S, 82.8°E • Slope 11.2° | 72.5% | 184.8 h | 154 kg | $184.8M | 34.2% | 68.1 / 100 |
Standard Polar Basin (Crater Floor Benchmark)BENCHMARK -88.2°S, 45.0°E • Slope 14.5° | 34.3% | 441.5 h | 367.9 kg | $441.5M | 78.6% | 24.5 / 100 |
Techno-Economic Conclusion: Malapert Mountain (Peak) represents the single most capital-efficient landing target on the lunar south pole. Its 96.4% illumination window limits continuous shadow to just 24.2 hours, saving +$38.4M in launch mass overhead compared to crater floors and allowing an extra 32+ kg of scientific equipment to be flown for zero extra rocket transit cost.