You mean the same technicality I was continually highlighting? The one that actually stops it being a "helicopter"?
To assume "drone" equates "quadracopter" then all the questioned systems are unviable as they require atmosphere. Should "drone" not equate "qaudracopter" then there are propulsion systems that could make that viable, in one form or another.
The flight mechanics of such a system is vastly adjusted also - for example a simple maneuver like a stable hover. On Earth the consistent 1G combined with air pressure at all sides means that unless your're close enough to the floor to get hit by your own rotor wash then stability is not much of a chore. Unless you're being gimp with the controls then it should pretty much achieve itself and you just compensate for wind and it's inconsistencies. In the low gravity environment there's less force pulling you "down" which makes holding height harder - software is far more likely to cope - it'll be "easier" and more efficient to repeatedly fire many short bursts than a continual specific pressure unless this is of significant weight. There's also issues with getting relative velocity to 0.00m/s, despite lacking wind. Center of mass and center of thrust begin to really matter - rotor damage aside, the thrust on a helicopter is pretty easy to blalance, even on a CH-47 - 0.0001 off in any direction encourages drift/rotation and there's no atmosphere to provide lateral resistence so the effect is magnified. Again, far more likely for software to cope with the constant and rapid adjustments required.
Such a system is highly unlikely to behave in the remotest as a helicopter. More comparable in terms of the mechanical effect leveraged than a helicopter would the Harrier - which is balanced well enough to prevent rotation/yaw, if the pilot compensates for angular momentum (can't confess to trying this on the moon however) as this leaves vector thrust mode and enters hover mode it's technically neither a jet nor a helicopter. Reltative velocity to 0.00m/s is still difficult. 0.05m/s » 0.1m/s for a few seconds is more realistic, with pilot correcting slightly to give an overall effect of stability - keeping it in a ten meter square box from 250 ft away looks like hovering static. It's kind of like standing on stilts, attempting to remain static requires constant compensation and ultimately doomed failure but even the smallest amount of constant momentum allows for smooth and easy progression. Or like an air hockey table - unless perfectly balanced, both the table and the puck, placed in the center, evenly, there will be drift one direction or another. Helicopters the thrust comes from slightly above as opposed to slightly below - and central as opposed to perimeter. Muchly different beasties in terms of handling, esp under mechanical failures.