Autogyro: Forgotten Tech Still Shows Signs Of Potential

Autogyros seem to be a forgotten tech thanks to the advent of the very versatile helicopter.  In modern times the autogyro has improved from Cierva's original design.  Two man crafts now feature initial powered rotation of the rotors, aft facing propeller that provides partial vector thrusting with the rudder.  Now the technology is being pushed further.  Let's check out a couple of 'sporty' autogyros on the market that would make James Bond green with envy, and let's look at two future developments in the making.

The autogyro is going the way of the sports car.  Calidus and Arrow Copter are currently on the market and show off their sexy bodies like no other rotary wing craft.  They both are tandem two seaters and feature enclosed cockpit with a bubble canopy.  Calidus has nice rounded curves and sleek lines while Arrow Copter sprawls out its elevator and rear landing gear almost like a bird of prey extends its wings, tail, and talons.  They are quite cool.  The beauty of a sleek and sexy autogyros lie in where they likes to fly.  They like to fly just above the tree tops, and they do very well there.  While planes can fly in that region, they can't maneuver as quickly in tight spaces as autogyros can.  Following the terrain is quite dangerous for planes.  Military planes require sophisticated radar mapping equipment to fly near the ground.  Autogyros can swivel in tight turns, can fly slow, and cost less in maintenance than a helicopter.  They can take off in around 500 ft of runway space though they don't need a runway.  A flat field will do.  They land in a fraction of that distance.  Both of these models have a max. speed of just over 100 mph.  They should do great in hilly or lake ridden landscapes.  I gathered this information by watching many videos of gyroplanes and reading specs on them.  Though it is said that autogyros are safer than helicopters, all aircraft can and do crash.  All safety precautions should be taken.



There are now 2 significant developments.  There is a flying car with the Pal-V, and there is a plane hybrid with Carter Aviation Technologies.  The Pal-V is a roadable autogyro.  That is it is street legal and flies like an autogyro.  It seems to drive more like an enclosed motorcycle than a car since it leans into turns on its 3 wheels.  The conversion from road vehicle to aircraft involves a combination of automatic motions and manual hands-on motions.  You can cross rivers, lakes, mountains (or hills), and valleys by flying over them and then park it at home.  That's pretty neat.

Carter Aviation Technologies have developed and perfected the slowed rotor concept to create a hybrid autogyro and plane.  The result is a craft that can virtually takeoff and land vertically yet have the flight efficiency and range of an airplane.  It's a real vertical takeoff and vertical landing craft (VTVL).  Carter Aviation redesigned the main rotor and added weights on the tips.  This allows for jump vertical takeoffs by pre-rotating the rotors.   The craft converts from autogyro to plane just by tilting the mast.  Then, it flies like a plane and you can get some great mileage or range out of your fuel.  With larger craft, Carter Aviation plans on using twin propellers with variable angle props which would allow the craft to hover like a helicopter.  This is truly a major breakthrough for the autogyro.



Autogyros are developing and have come far since Cierva made his debut flight in 1924.   Some on the market are sporty, sexy, and fun.  New innovations should help the future of this venerable craft.  Perhaps one day we will look at autogyros the way we look at helicopters personal planes.  It can be the safer go anywhere personal craft.  Engineering is awesome.

Getting To Mars Depicted (Part 2)

In Part 1, we went through how much a trip to Mars costs in terms of fuel and hardware.  It takes 8 large rocket launches just for one manned mission.  That is about 75% the launches of the Apollo program to the moon.  Back then, the US Congress was willing to spend the money, but today they are holding back wanting to cut NASA's budget.  That's nothing new.  Congress has been cutting NASA's budget for at least the past 20 years.  A manned mission to Mars is quite a huge undertaking.  I know I did not talk about the radiation concerns or other crew health issues.  NASA likes to mention those.  They don't like to mention how much it would cost, and I think that is an issue that Congress and the public need to address.  The more the public knows about this issue the better.  How could we possibly reduce the cost?  Well, I've got 2 ideas.  Both of them are along the lines of mass transportation and reusable assets.  Reusable transportation assets and multiple manifests could provide more effective financing than one mission going alone by any one government space program.

Many Launchers for 1 Mission

Reusable Assets

When talking about reusable assets, a tug to take payloads from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and a reusable Mars lander/launcher come to mind.    For Mars, these assets have to be very sophisticated to include transferring of fuel and other consumables.  They would have to be able to be controlled remotely with some automation and manually by any crew.

I've talked about a reusable tug before.  For Mars, having a large tug that can travel many times between the planets could provide the means to take multiple missions on each trip.  Distributing the cost of the trip among several customers could make the trip financially possible.  I like to imagine such a tug as being based on the concept of the Saturn S-IVB.  It would have to be much larger.  I could have duo-propulsion: traditional chemical booster; electric propulsion such as ion drive or plasma drive.  Space.com has a great article on electric propulsion called How Electric Spacecraft Could Fly NASA To Mars.  A robitic arm such as the Canadarm 2 could provide a means of capturing and docking many different types of space modules.  Also it should be able to carry many modules to include unmanned and manned modules simultaneously.  Our module technology has become quite sophisticated so I don't think that would be a problem.  One of the biggest issues of such a craft would be electric power.  Solar panels are nice, but large ones would be needed to power the electric propulsion.  They also should be able to retract and deploy on command and often.  I expect that aerobraking maneuver would help reduce the amount of fuel needed for each mission.  Solar panels would need to retract for that maneuver lest they are damaged.  These panels would have to last a long time.  Another option, though less popular, would be giving the craft its own nuclear power reactor.  Of course, responsible handling of the nuclear material is a must; including a disposal plan for the depleted nuclear material.

A reusable lander/launcher is necessary. The idea of landing on an atmospheric planet is enticing and yet hard.  If you going to reuse the lander, it has to launch from the planet as well.  We've never created a craft like that before.  It would need a heat shield that can pop off and be replaced easily (by robotic means), a reliable engine, and large tanks for fuel.  After every launch back into orbit, it would need to be serviced and refueled for the next landing.  This craft is important because for one manned mission, NASA would use 3 landers and 1 launcher.  That's 4 vehicles.  Consolidating hardware complexity and weight into one vehicle should save on cost.  Using this vehicle for many missions should be a savings multiplier.

What do we really want to do on Mars?  Do we want to just plant a flag and walk around a go home?  No, many folks want to do many things.  From geology to colonization to terraforming, Mars has inspired many possible missions.  If we go with throw away assets, we won't be able to afford getting there but once in a generation if at all.  Mars should also only be the first step to exploring and exploiting the inner solar system.  Therefore, reusable assets are a must.  We must build an infrastructure.

Multiple Manifests

Mars Plane

 To spread the cost of trips to Mars and back, it would seem a no brainer to get as many different missions and customers to sign on.  It's like filling up the cargo hold and passenger cabins of a larch ocean fairing ship to make trips between continents across a large ocean.

Imagine multiple unmanned mission accompanied by one manned mission packed on the reusable tug that is about to depart Earth orbit.  These mission could be from all types: orbital, landers, rovers and sample returns.  The landers, rovers, and sample return missions can get loaded up on the reusable lander/launcher to get down to the surface along with the assests of the manned mission.  It seems they would all land in one spot.  Well, that could create the opportunity to have some planetary transportation services such as fast rovers and aircraft.  You can quickly imagine a multitude of missions and activity around and on Mars.

Spreading the cost for each trip and back from Mars among many customers seems reasonable.  Using reusable assets such as a reusable transportation tug and a reusable lander/launcher goes hand in hand with multiple manifests.  Such an effort could easily be a commercial venture.  Such an infrastructure could have the effect of researching the red planet in a much faster fashion than what we do now.  If regular trips to Mars every 3 years is sustainable then we would have established a permanent link worthy of colonization.

Getting To Mars Depicted (Part 1)

There is a lot of talk about going to Mars these days.  It's an old goal, and one that captures people's imaginations.  So much so that many movies and science fiction series episodes depict such a trip.  What are the current plans?  Why haven't we gone yet?

NASA's Mars Transfer Vehicle

NASA has a plan to get to Mars.  It involves 7 launches of the Heavy Lift Vehicle rocket, then 1 launch of a crew rocket,  and 3 transfer vehicles, 2 landers, and 1 launcher from the surface of Mars.  Unfortunately, that was for 1 manned mission.  That's an insane amount of hardware and consumables.  That gives you an idea of what a monumental task it is to land on Mars and to come back.

Unfortunately the plan was geared for the now dead Constellation Program. Russia has a plan for a manned Mars mission.  I've heard it's to the Martian moon Phobos.  Elon Musk wants to go to Mars as well as the Mars Society members.  Even Buzz Aldrin is looking forward to a manned Mars mission.  He has a book out now called Mission To Mars: My Vision For Space Exploration.

Mars by Viking 1

There are a couple of non-government proposals to the red planet.  Dennis Tito, who visited ISS in , proposed a sling shot mission around Mars involving two people but no landing.  What I like about this mission is that it's quite concise and understood.  I mean we've done this with unmanned craft. Space.com has an article about it called Dennis Tito's 2018 Human Mars Flyby Mission Explained.

Another proposed mission seems a little crazy to me because it sidelines the problem of returning to Earth by not returning.  Mars One Foundation wants to conquer Mars with a colony and is looking for people willing for this one way ticket mission.  The settlement idea is impressive.  They seem to use their resources wisely.  Yet, once people arrive, then you have to supply them with provisions like food for the long term.  That is at least a launch to Mars every 3 years.  If it's all the same to you, I'd be happier with a way back home to Earth, please.

The Mars Society is a group of people interested in colonizing the red planet.  They also create papers and do research that will aid in manned missions.  They have been conducting some interesting simulated manned mission on the martian surface.  These are being conducted at Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS).  It's a simulated base with all kinds of experiments going on.  They are always looking for volunteers.  I you wondered what would people do on the red planet, check Mars Society out.  You'd be amazed.

Mars - JPL Solar System Simulator

So, why haven't we been to Mars yet?  That's a really good question.  It's a question that is not easily answered.  We wanted to go in the Apollo era.  We've been talking about going for many decades.  We've sent rovers there and that has renewed interest for a manned mission.  I suppose the answer is embarrassing to engineers and scientists.  These guys are 'can do' people.  They take a 'can't don't' challenge and tackle it.  Manned mission to Mars happen to be extremely difficult.  The areas of difficulty are not in technology but finances and logistics.

There are two big problems with such a trip:

1. Mars is so far away its very expensive to land 1 lb on it.
2. Mars is hard to launch from, unlike the moon.

Mars is quite far away and that's understandable. 34.8 million miles is the closest Earth has come to Mars.  The moon is only 0.25 of a million miles from Earth.   Mars is going about 54,493.9 mph.  Earth is going about 66,673.5 mph.  Now, that may seem counter intuitive that Earth is actually traveling faster than Mars, but were dealing with the gravitational field of the Sun and it's not linear, but curved.  So, a spacecraft has to overcome the Earth's gravitational pull to cruise to Mars.  That would require several times the fuel needed to get to the moon per pound or kilogram.

To launch from the surface of Mars, you need to account for the gravity and the atmospheric friction.  Mars has about twice the gravity of the moon and a third that of the Earth.  The martian atmosphere pressure is like that at about 100k ft in Earth's atmosphere.  I figure you could compare it to launching from the Moon with the Apollo lander or launching from Earth with a Mercury launch.  Either way, you end up with a launcher that is several times the mass of the lunar lander.  You need to take all that weight to Mars from Earth, and that at multiple times what it costs to go to the moon.

The distance between Mars and the Earth and the conditions on Mars itself make it extremely expensive in fuel and hardware to do any mission.  That may help answer why we haven't gone yet.  Who is going to afford it?  Is there a better way than throw away hardware?

Click here for Part 2.

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)