So, I guess your attempt to call me out and be a wise guy is not what you would call harrassment huh? Traditionally it would not but, a traditional helicopter would be useless on the moon so, it would have to be modified to utilize an alternative propulsion method. It could still have the same design as a traditional helicopter save for the rotors and because of the fact that. The thrusters would allow it the same type of range of movement as traditional helicopters have it really would not be much different! So, you could build a helicopter to operate on the moon, just not by traditional means of propulsion.

You act as if there would be significant differences between the two. When there would only be two that are brought about by necessity. Again I say you should place more time into thinking about what you intend to say, rather than trying to be a wise guy and make others look foolish. Oh, and, you could actually leave the rotors on though they would be useless. People are not going to say it is not a helicopter because it has no rotors. In fact, people will be more inclined to associate it with a helicopter, because it will operate in much the same way as a traditional helicopter, it may just be rotorless

My point is, entirely, that once you remove the rotor(s) it stops being a helicopter. Once you start adding other propulsion methods, then it's far more likely to conform to another prevously existing vehicle type. Which would depend on precise propulsion and config.

This is not harrassment, but a simple statement of fact. As is there are severe differences between the two, least of all in flight mechanics.

No, it would not not in this case, it would still have enough similarities with traditional helicopters and as I said before the rotors can even be left on the final design. Regardless of their being totally useless in an environment where there is no atmosphere. Severe differences!? Both would be able to hover, fly forwards, backwards, up, down, left, and right. The only real differences would be the methods of propulsion used and the environments each is meant to operate in. Basically, in design and function a craft intended to operate on the moon that functions the same as a helicopter would on Earth is a helicopter

Oh for the love of Pete. How is this debate going on, other than just to perpetuate conflict?

Definition: Helicopter:

a type of aircraft that derives both lift and propulsion from one or more sets of horizontally revolving overhead rotors. It is capable of moving vertically and horizontally, the direction of motion being controlled by the pitch of the rotor blades.

Ergo, helicopters won't work on the moon, because their definition cannot function on the moon.

1. It cannot get lift nor propulsion from its horizontally revolving overhead rotors, again because of lack of air.
2. It cannot move vertically or horizontally, again, because of lack of lift of propulsion which, again, is because of lack of air.

Technically, it still qualifies as an aircraft, despite the lack of actual air.

So, people can call it a helicopter, the same way people can call a cow a horse. Sure, if people understand you, great, but you will still sound like an idiot to everyone else who knows better.

Gotta admit that was funny, a little rude but funny all the same and no it is not still taking place for conflict's sake. I originally had never intended to reply past my initial comment. I was just trying to stress the fact that beyond the technicality you pointed out. The designed craft could still be considered as a helicopter in the basic sense of how they would both possess the same charteristics as far as flight is concerned

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.

With some resources found in space that are flammable, we can use for our thrusters if needed, which wouldn't a flammable material be bad for a drone in space?

No, the moon does not have the atmosphere and amount of gas to allow a drone or helicopter to propel itself in any direction. Machines like that require something to push against, such as air to move. Using electromagnetic propulsion or even jets would work.

учитывая низкую гравитацию на Луне лучше всего прыгать.желательно для лучшего автоматического поверхностного моделирования и геологоразведки иметь  машину с длинными ногами для прыжков и большим надувным солнечным рефлектором для энергетического питания.Верхний прозрачный шар с длинными ногами и надувной отражатель внутри .

given the low gravity on the moon it is best to jump.it is desirable for the best automatic surface modeling and exploration to have a car with long legs for jumping and a large inflatable solar reflector for the energy supply.Top transparent ball with long legs and an inflatable reflector inside .