The moon is slowing us down - let's bomb it!
No, bombing the Moon won't solve our problems. But the behavior we see left, right, and center makes just as much sense. For those who feel the Earth crying out in pain, AND HAVE SOMETHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT, it is like watching the madness of bombing the Moon to save the Earth.
I have not been writing diaries because I have been busy getting patents, and proving things known for one hundred years still work in a lab. I have been building 501c(3) charities to support education and industrial research targeted on one goal - reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. We know how to reduce fossil fuel consumption 33%, 50%, and 75% to 95% in less than ten years. But thank goodness, instead of getting a tax deduction (without even waiting for Congress to pass it!), and cutting business costs (like is taught in school), we can save the planet by bombing the Moon!
I watched with glee as President Obama announced the Clean Energy Plan, requiring industry to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, then shuddered in horror as I found out the plan has NOTHING for increased efficiency. Not even a small SBIR from the Department of Energy to find out if it could be done. Just taxes and scrubbers and costs for business that don't reduce the actual AMOUNT of fossil fuels used at all. Might as well save the planet by bombing the Moon.
I went to a big industry conference, to pitch the proposal that the major domestic airlines could take 10% of their monthly fuel cost as a tax break, then the 501c(3) could spend 5% of that on University research, 5% on University scholarships, and 90% of it on industrial research, to implement the best jet engine technology for the jet fleet of today. One of the big jet engine manufacturers WOULD NOT EVEN DISCUSS it, and sent a threatening letter from their legal counsel. One of the big airlines was polite enough to consider it but reject it because they felt there was not much chance of success. Yet NASA has N+1 (33%), N+2 (50%) and N+3 (75-95%) more efficient engines being researched today, with the N+1 engines already certified and mounted on new planes as we speak. Not much chance of making the same engines you are buying on the 4B$ dollars of planes you just ordered, sure, might as well bomb the Moon.
Lest I present too gloom and doom a vision here, let me remind you we still have ongoing talks with our of the major jet engine manufacturers, and one of the major major airlines is still talking about joining the project, because they hate - literally hate - their fuel bill every month (domestic airlines spend over 47B$ a year on fuel). But there is a two to four year delay just getting engines certified, and the N+2 technology isn't supposed to be ready until 2020, or the N+3 until 2025, even though the expedited research would shorten that timeline. So there are sane people who see the business case and don't feel that bombing the Moon is our best option.
I'm a bit prejudiced, because the technology we've patented has wide applicability to jet engines, rocket engines, and power generation, but if the calculations for our engine prove out as we think they will, we could generate the same thrust as a Boeing 777x class engine for about 5% to 7% of the fuel cost. In rocket engines, we have similar advantages (up to 30x) in fuel efficiency, but while DARPA has been interested, they have a set of hoops for us still to jump through, and none of the Dot.Com aerospace Billionaires is even willing to take a second look at the technology. So perhaps, if we do go ahead and bomb the Moon, we'd better get ready to pay thirty times more for the privilege (or any other access to space).
The power generation part of it still sticks in my craw. We set up the same proposal that the major utilities could take 10% of their monthly fuel cost as a tax break, then the 501c(3) could spend 5% of that on University research, 5% on University scholarships, and 90% of it on industrial research, to implement the best power generation technology for the power plants of today. I have a cousin who is an Executive Vice President in one of the companies that consults with the power companies on these issues. He's a renewables guy, so he isn't in favor of anything that makes fossil fuels more attractive. His considered opinion is that saving the planet just isn't important enough to bend orthodoxy and doctrine, so we'd best get on with bombing the Moon.
For their part, the industry would rather spend their billions on lawyers and politicians fighting the Clean Power initiative, than on actually reducing their costs and making the regulations irrelevant. Sometimes people would rather fight the fight they know, than face the unknown (the movie “Aliens” is strangely relevant here). So fortunately, Congress can still keep those SLS appropriations going strong and we won't even have to slip the schedule a quarter in bombing the moon.
As to those of you who question the orthodoxy of bombing the Moon to save the planet, just remember that without the Moon, the Earth will spin faster, and without those pesky tides to deal with, journeys by boat (as the sea levels rise) will be much more convenient. Since we cannot reduce global warming twenty fold, we just have to accept the consequences.