Drones For Future Civilian Uses

We have all heard of drones these days.  They attack and hurt people, and they are robots in the sky.  Unmanned Areal Vehicles (UAV) is what they used to call them.  Back in the 90's that was a new name.  Before that we called them remotely controlled aircraft.  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the harmless R/C airplane made out of balsa wood had turned into a killing monster out of science fiction.  Yet, I don't believe that drones are done evolving.  History has yet to write the next chapter on these aerial vehicles.  What makes a drone a drone, and where can it go from here?

Black Hornet Nano

A drone is an aircraft without a pilot, correction, without a pilot inside the craft itself.  There is most always a pilot, if not two.  Between the pilot and the craft is a series of communication devices and servos, and robotic relays that's needed to fly the craft.  The range of the craft will depend on two things, fuel and communication with the pilots.  Now, this set up allows for a very wide variety of size, shapes, and speeds.  So much so, that the smallest one that the military uses is only 10 cm (0.328 ft) long.  It's called the Black Hornet Nano.  As you can imagine, it's mission is for surveillance,     On the other end of the design spectrum, we have one of the largest which is the Global Hawk made by Northrup Grumman.  Now, this one has been in operation for a while.  New drones have come out that are more stealthy, but Global Hawk represents high end drones for our purposes.  It has a wingspan of 39.9 m (130.9 ft).  Of course, the main drone used by the military has been the Predator.  A drone has exceeded manned aircraft in an endurance flight.  Read about Zephyr in this article found in flightglobal.com.  There are many and varied drones in the world.  New aircraft designs like that of Carter Copter and HILLS Space Plane are finding some interest by the drone clients.  I think that drones are going to jump from military usage to commercial roles in the near future.  In his article, Joe Schoffstall of CNSNews.com says that near future is quite soon.

NASA's Global Hawk

There are commercial applications for drones that will come out in the future.  Among such applications, I can imagine drones covering the morning traffic commute.  Just think; instead of reporters climbing in a prop aircraft or a helicopter, they go inside where the drone's pilots are, an office that's on the ground.  The reporters look intently at the monitor that shows the images from the drone's cameras.  They are not in danger, and they can go to the bathroom anytime.  They report the traffic news, and the cost of this service drops.  Helicopters are costly to maintain.  Drones are smaller, and a drone the right size has the potential to be cheaper.  From what I can find out, current large drones are quite expensive.  It sounds favorable for the reporters, and potentially financially favorable for the network shelling out the money for this service.  Unfortunately, the helicopter or airplane pilot would be out of a job.  Other applications are ones that piloted planes do now, such as surveillance, law enforcement, etc.  One of the main benefits of drones is that they can stay aloft as long as they have fuel.  Pilots can be changed out in shifts on the ground.  An example of non-military use of drones is NASA's Global Hawk which is used to get telemetry on hurricanes and atmospheric readings related to Earth sciences.

I feel like I have to talk about the fear that people have of drones.  The US Military were the first military to use them and the first to use them as weapons.  The weaponizing of drones have had a bad effect on public relations.  Drone fear is real and heavy.  Farea al-Muslimi spoke to the US Senate on this fear in an article by Spencer Ackman of Wired Magazine.  They are hard to detect in the sky and they can strike when you least expect it.  This fear was not unique in aviation history.  Helicopters caused a similar fear, but that fear was about being monitored not killed.  Could this fear hamper any attempts at commercializing drones?

Drones are here, and they are here to stay.  What we do with them is going to be up to us.  What laws will restrict their uses in the future?  What will we tolerate?  What benefits could they have to our everyday life?  These things are merely tools.  ICBMs are weapons of mass destruction and instilled fear in common man in the Cold War.  Now companies like Orbital Sciences use them to launch satellites into orbit.  Like missiles, Drones can find an acceptable role in society.  You decide.

HILLS Space Plane - David Luther Interview

Being recently introduced to the Horizontal In-Line Launch Staging (HILLS) Space Plane and finding it dramatically cool and futuristic, I ventured to seek an interview with David Luther.  David is the mastermind behind this impressive design.

HILLS Space Plane Design

David Luther,  You have a cool space plane concept can you give a brief description of it?

Two blended wing body aircraft are joined as a single space plane to fly from a runway to space and back.  They are joined in line, nose to tail for aerodynamic and safety advantages until they separate in flight for staging.  Their combined wings enhance lift with reduced drag for a smaller more efficient launch system that is fully reusable as well.

How did you come up with this idea?

Years ago I worked with Bill Colburn on a suborbital blended wing body concept.  These forms offer large internal volume and reduced drag.  One member of that effort suggested we consider orbital applications.  I proposed joining wing bodies in-line to keep the frontal area low.  The shuttle accidents validated placing the crew out in front of booster malfunctions as well.  Being able to stage early offers an escape path.

Is the in-line configuration a new idea or one just not implemented yet?

We see the X-43 on the nose of a Pegasus winged rocket in testing.  Other similar examples are usually lofted by a conventional jet aircraft.  I have never seen this done from the runway with a blended wing body though.  We see interesting aerodynamic effects from the two wings acting in harmony as a single wing.  This was the feature that we identified as a patent opportunity.

You have a mother ship and an orbiter.  How would this configuration make it to Earth orbit?

We are similar to other horizontal proposals of the past except for having stages in-line.  I like using a rail launch for control during takeoff.  Rubber tires threatened the Concorde and rocket fuel is a lot of responsibility for the pilot. Rails remove issues with traction in crosswinds and may be used for braking in an abort emergency.  Any energy gain is frosting.  Our models and drones will use a rail launch as most drones do.  Landing gear can be lighter when only tasked with a single empty stage, adding more payload capacity. 

Suborbital speeds are good in the lower atmosphere, and rockets can deliver the delta vee in thinner air where drag is less of an issue.  Blunt forms are better for reentry as most active shuttles show.  We are less blunt than some lifting bodies so we may retain some cross range flight ability on landing. 

Some say that wings are not needed in space, and that wings and such provide unnecessary weight to the vehicle.  Why is this a better system than using rocket and capsule?

True, to go to space is easy without wings, but to recover the booster and orbiter is important since they are  assets.  Low cost and high flight rates will require recovery of the total system.  Wings are also functional for glide recovery if propulsion fails on ascent or reentry.  Vertical landing lacks this alternative on propulsion loss, and they have the mass penalty of more fuel load. 

Capsules are fine, but I haven’t seen much reusability historically.  The X-37 is operating reusably on a regular basis with wings today.  Orbital Sciences Pegasus used wings to aid orbital ascent, Stratolauncher will build on this, and Xcor will offer an orbital system too.  We may just have a little of the mass and fuel burn towards this goal.

Blended wing bodies offer high lift and low drag with good internal volume.  When coupled we see the orbiter making a contribution to lift during the ascent flight.  The wings and associated vortex activity multiply the efficiency of the booster combination.  The booster can be smaller as it gains wing area from the orbiter.

This principle can offer smaller atmospheric airliners for ocean crossings too.  A booster can enable smaller engines and fuel tanks for atmospheric flights.  This also empowers greater efficiency for unmanned drone systems.  New propulsion like scramjets will need an efficient booster design as well.

HILLS Space Plane - Separation

Where are you in your project?

Kickstarter may fund a model airplane as a demonstration.  That would be a fun project, but we already have some interest from the drone market.  If these are on duty for crop monitoring and border patrol, the idea will become more common.  Production and visibility can open minds to more applications.  We are open to billionaire angels, but a regular paycheck is an acceptable alternative too.  Jeff Greason and Xcor are my role model in this area: “Show me the money!”

What do you hope to accomplish?

I want to eliminate the new American caste system called “unemployable”.  If you are part of that group, please consider donating time to our effort.  We will invest sweat equity towards a new paradigm: “If you can’t join them, lick them!” 

What do you need to accomplish it?

Faith and patience.  Some competitors will fall to overconfidence or system complexity and alternative solutions will gain more opportunities.  Some systems will arrive in the right place at the right time and grow with the opportunities. Some solutions are as natural as water flowing downhill; buy farms with good bottom land soil and plant!

HILLS Space Plane - Cut Out

What do you say to the other alternate ways to orbit like that of JP Aerospace (dirigibles to orbit), the Space Elevator guys, or even air launch companies like Orbital Sciences and Stratolaunch and Virgin Galactic?

I had lunch with John Powell (JP Aerospace) last year and we may want some light gas pockets in future space planes.  Helium is in short supply lately though.  Space elevators are focused only on the moon now, and other orbital efforts will only help to build a market.  We hope to show that market a way to shave a little waste from the system.

Alternative systems are good for niche applications as with rotary and fixed wing aircraft.  Heavy lift may favor vertical launch and passengers may favor wings.  Vertical landing is the only path to the moon and asteroids.  We need all the good ideas.

Is there anything else in particular you wish to share with aerospace aficionados?

Don’t waste your study hall time drawing pictures of space ships.  Do the math!!

David's HILLS Space Plane is a unique and awesome concept.  If David has his way and it's successful, we may be traveling to orbit effortlessly as passengers like we do international flights now.  It could be a Star Trek kind of experience.  To follow on what David said, drawing pictures is fine, but make them reality with math.  Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) are where it's at.

[Pictures were provided courtesy of David Luther]

Commercial Moon Missions Imagined

Apollo took men to the Moon. Many unmanned craft of Russia and US and now other countries have made it to the moon. Soon to follow are commercial companies. Now, China wants to send Taikonauts to the moon. I don't blame them since a progressive space program can produce lots of research that helps their economy.  How would commercial companies go to the moon?  What vehicles would they need?  How should they differ from past manned missions?  Learning from Apollo, it's obvious that certain modules are needed to make any mission to the moon work.  You need a capsule to return the crew to Earth, you need an in space booster, or two, to get the crew and equipment from earth to the moon and back, and you need a lander.  Now, if your not going to the surface, you will need a space station made up of at least one module. It goes without saying that you need to supply all the fuel and other consumables for those vehicles.  Let's look at how these modules might be for a cool commercial effort that comprises of many missions to our natural satellite.

NASA's Orion MPCV

Why a capsule?  Well, let's put it this way, two superpowers chose the capsule to return crew from the moon. Even though Soviet Russia did not do a manned mission to the moon, they did plan for one. Capsules are concise and able space vehicles. I've heard space professionals say that wings are not needed in space. A space plane would have extra weight, and weight is the Achilles' heal of flight. When your traveling a half a million miles round trip in space, wings seem like a luxury.  So capsules it is.  What's great right now is that SpaceX is pushing the development of the capsules to have them set down on land with a propulsive landing and be able to be reused for more missions.  That is a far cry form Apollo days which relied extensively on a service module for crew survivability over the length of the mission.  SpaceX Dragon only has solar panels that are not incorporated into the capsule itself.  Everything else is.  Now, a capsule needs a beefier heat shield for lunar missions than just Earth orbit.  The temperature difference is about 2000 degrees Fahrenheit (1093 degrees Celsius) between reentering Earth's atmosphere from low orbit and from the Moon.  Currently, it is only feasible to have the capsule reenter the Earth atmosphere coming from the moon rather than trying to enter an Earth orbit.  We have not figured out how to go from Moon orbit to Earth orbit with a manned mission yet.  Though, in the future that could be a preferred way of doing business.

ESA'a Smart-1 ion drive to Moon

Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) was the maneuver used to take Apollo from Earth orbit to lunar orbit.  They used the upper stage of the Saturn V rocket to perform it and then jettisoned the booster.  Yes, I did not mention the Command Module docking with the Lunar Module because it's not relevant right now.  That may have worked for NASA but commercial efforts would require re-usability for many missions over time.  So to take care of the TLI function a reusable tug is in order.  Now this tug has to accommodate both manned an unmanned missions.  So, two forms of propulsion that exist should be used.  One is the traditional chemical booster and the other is the newer ion drive.  ESA's Smart-1 used an ion drive to power its way from Earth orbit to lunar orbit so its a viable technology.  The ion drive can be used for multiple reasons.  It has the power to navigate unmanned craft or failed manned craft (in the case of a dead crew) back to Earth so the loss of assets are minimized.  It can navigate the tug by itself to meet another ship for rescue operations.  It can speed up a manned mission to the moon, or other space bodies, by activating en-route all the way.  So it makes sense to have a dual propulsion system for our reusable space tug.  Of course, it will need a power supply and solar panels should do nicely.  A nuclear power system would be nicer since it could enhance performance and endurance of the craft, but radiating the crew or your cargo or ship is an issue.  Though, the nuclear system could power an artificial magnetic field that provides shielding.  The tug can be used to do all the burns to get from Earth orbit to lunar orbit, and it can get the capsule on its way back to Earth.  After detaching from the capsule, it can change course and get into an elliptical orbit and use aerobraking to slow down the craft to an orbit that is useful for refuel and the next mission thus saving fuel.

Apollo 12 - Intrepid Lunar Module

LEM was the acronym for the lunar lander in the Apollo program.  It meant Lunar Excursion Module.  Later, they just named it Lunar Module but somehow LEM stuck.  A reusable lunar lander would be more appropriate for multiple missions than the one time use LEM.  It could be refueled by the space tug in preparation of a landing and launching back from the surface.  It could be kept in lunar orbit in between missions.  One chemical engine should suffice.  The Apollo LEM was made up of two vehicles: a landing vehicle and a launching vehicle.  For our reusable one, it should be one vehicle.  Perhaps, two lunar landers could provide some redundancy and security for missions.

A single inflatable station module is good to have in orbit around the moon.  Such modules are being developed by Bigelow Aerospace.  It can serve as bigger space and more accommodations for crews, a port for the reusable lander, and a staging place for crew equipment and supplies.  One mission can bring it into orbit with or without a lander to begin with.  More station modules can be added to it as needed.  Boeing had previously suggested EML2 as a place for a lunar station instead of just simple lunar orbit.  I mentioned this plan in my post "Space Exploration Plans From Boeing".  I like the simple lunar orbit exclusively for moon missions over EML2 simply because its closer to the surface and it should take less time and fuel to get to.  Even if that is marginally true, its still viable over the course of many missions or even a campaign.

With capsules, space tugs, landers, and a space station; a commercial effort can carry out many moon missions for various customers.  Thinking about it now, I feel that having a space station around the Moon and a lander would be a good combination for several missions.  Humans have gone to the moon, and many more want to go for various reasons.  Finding way on how to thrive and not just survive on the moon is important for humanity.  We need to spread out beyond Earth.  The moon provides a first step towards that goal.

The Return Of Chesterfield Airshow

TBM Avenger 2007 Airshow

The Chesterfield Air Show is coming back in 2014.  We haven't seen it since 2007, which I attended.  I love airshows.  The flight demonstrations are great but I like the static displays best.  That's where you get a close look at the craft, touch it, and talk to pilots and owners.  It's just a thrill to get next to a hunk of metal that can lift itself in the air.

According to the St Louis Post Dispatch reported in it's article Spirit of St Louis to hold anniversary show article that this will be a one time show.  Of course that could change and it could become an annual event.  At least that is the inference.

C-2 Greyhound 2007 Airshow

The previous air show had a county fair attached to it.  The one next year will not but will be on a STEM (Science Technology Engineering, and Mathematics) bent.  I really think this is a worthy cause.  We need young students interested in these fields to fuel our technology research machine.  Aviation is a wonderful field to demonstrate what you can do with research.  Old engineering techniques, 'war' stories (stories of experience),  new materials, and new gadgets are some of the things you can pick up from air shows.

Kudos to St Louis County for this airshow.  I encourage everyone who can to come out next year and check it out.  For those not in Missouri, keep the look out for your local airshow and support it.  Many airshows die out because of lack of participation and that's a sad thing.  I encourage the STEM effort and airshow partnership.  It seems a good need and solution effort.

(Pictures shown in this post were taken by E C Holm in the 2007 Chesterfield Airshow)