Moonresource-derived planning layers are computed from multiple source datasets through formal weighted models. This page documents the full methodology for each derived layer — input data, weights, normalization, formulas, confidence assessment, and known limitations. We publish this for transparency. Professional users who need these scores for decision-making should understand exactly how they are built.
All derived layers follow a weighted linear combination methodology. Source layers are first normalized to a common [0, 100] scale using min-max normalization across the study area. Normalized values are then multiplied by their assigned weights and summed. Weights reflect the relative importance of each factor for the specific planning question and are calibrated against published settlement and mission planning criteria.
The output is always a score from 0 to 100, where higher values indicate more favorable conditions for the planning objective in question. Scores are deterministic — the same input data always produces the same output.
Important Disclaimer
These models are Moonresource internal research products. They are not peer-reviewed, not endorsed by NASA or any space agency, and should not be used as sole decision criteria for mission planning. They are analytical tools intended to support — not replace — professional engineering judgment.
Composite index scoring lunar surface locations for long-term habitation potential. Designed for preliminary site screening in early-phase settlement architecture studies.
| Hydrogen Proxy | 25% — Water ice access, critical for life support and propellant |
| Solar Continuity | 20% — Power sustainability, continuous solar preferred |
| LOLA Elevation | 15% — Terrain stability proxy, moderate elevations preferred |
| Hillshade | 10% — Terrain roughness proxy, smoother terrain preferred |
| PSR Regions | 10% — Volatile access vs. illumination tradeoff |
| Iron Abundance | 10% — In-situ construction material availability |
| Landing Safety | 10% — Logistics accessibility within 50 km |
S = Σ(wᵢ × normalized_valueᵢ) where Σwᵢ = 1.0
Model assumes static illumination conditions and does not account for seasonal thermal cycling. Hydrogen proxy resolution (~45 km) limits precision in small crater features. Terrain stability is approximated from elevation and hillshade rather than geotechnical properties. The model does not factor communication line-of-sight, radiation shielding, or dust environment.
Moonresource Research — Internal model. Not peer-reviewed. Weights calibrated against published settlement criteria from the Lunar Architecture Team (2024) and the Global Exploration Roadmap.
Percentage of a lunar year with direct solar illumination at each grid cell. Directly relevant to solar power infrastructure sizing and thermal management.
| LOLA Elevation | 70% — Primary DEM for ray-trace shadow computation |
| Hillshade | 30% — Local horizon angle estimation |
C = (Σ illuminated_hours) / 8766 × 100
Resolution limited by LOLA DEM (118 m). Does not model reflected illumination from nearby terrain (which can contribute significantly in shadowed areas). Ephemeris simplified to 1-hour steps rather than continuous computation. Does not account for spacecraft or structure self-shadowing.
Composite score factoring distance to high-value resources, terrain traversability, and estimated energy cost of surface transport. Designed for ISRU site screening.
| Hydrogen Proxy | 35% — Water ice resource distance and concentration |
| Iron Abundance | 20% — Metallic resource availability |
| LOLA Elevation | 20% — Slope-derived traversability cost |
| Titanium Abundance | 15% — High-value ilmenite feedstock |
| Thorium Abundance | 10% — KREEP enrichment proxy for rare-earth access |
R = Σ(wᵢ × norm_valueᵢ) − slope_penalty
Traversability model uses elevation as slope proxy — no direct slope raster is computed. Transport energy cost is estimated using simplified regolith friction coefficients, not simulated with rover dynamics. Hydrogen proxy resolution limits sub-km precision near PSR boundaries where concentration gradients may be steep.
Multi-criteria safety assessment for robotic and crewed landing operations. Designed to flag hazardous terrain and identify safe approach corridors.
| LOLA Elevation | 35% — Slope computation: <8° required for safe landing |
| Hillshade | 30% — Roughness proxy: uniform illumination indicates flatness |
| Iron Abundance | 20% — Regolith maturity proxy: mature regolith is more stable |
| PSR Regions | 15% — Hazard avoidance: PSR boundaries are high-risk |
L = min(slope_score, roughness_score) × 0.6 + hazard_clearance × 0.2 + regolith_stability × 0.2
No direct boulder detection — roughness is inferred from hillshade uniformity, which cannot resolve meter-scale hazards. Approach corridor analysis requires 3D flight path modeling not included in this version. Slope derived from 118 m DEM may miss both small flat areas within rough terrain and small hazards within smooth terrain.
Planned improvements for upcoming versions include:
• Integration of Mini-RF radar roughness data for direct surface roughness measurement
• LROC NAC-derived boulder density maps at priority south polar sites
• Diviner thermal inertia data for regolith physical properties
• Communication line-of-sight modeling for relay infrastructure planning
• Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation through the scoring pipeline