Of course, because nothing matters more than getting the advantage.
Same line of thinking that results in depleted uranium tank shells.
Same line of thinking that results in depleted uranium tank shells.
Yeah, since neither was particularly toxic, and both offered significant performance gains over the alternatives. (Uranium is extremely dense, self-sharpens on impact instead of mushrooming, and catches fire after penetration giving you an incendiary payload for free. Supposedly, nothing else comes close for tank rounds)
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp186.pdf
The problem here is that armor piercing rounds need to be made of heavy metals in order to work and heavy metals are generally toxic. Even lead, which old fashioned bullets and shells are made of is toxic.
There's some flight safety concerns that have delayed it, but it's still a work in progress.
I think that the 737-Max issue will put so much more spotlight and brakes on anything that seems remotely risky, that the alternative fuels program (which was already struggling as you note) is unlikely to make serious near-term progress.
Almost tangentially, I believe that we have a viable fuel technically (G100UL) that is likely to be (or be the template for) the fuel ultimately selected, albeit possibly a decade or more in the future.
There's also some news at https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/ , but nothing substantial..
Equally funny is where someone thought that it would be a wonderful idea to burn mercaptans in a rocket, which wasn't quite as toxic, but caused the test site to become a no-go zone just from the unbearable stench.