Whenever a need solving a complex scientific issue arises, calls often go out to start another Apollo/Manhattan Project. It is constructive to make a comparison of those two programs and determine if they are really a suitable model for today’s problems.
Cost
The media often cites the costs for these programs without accounting for inflation, otherwise known as nominal costs. That’s a serious mistake, especially when attempting to make a comparison to modern effort.
The Manhattan Project cost $1.9 billion in 1944 dollars. Adjusting for inflation, that is $27.5 billion in 2019. The average annual cost of the project is on par for annual spending on tobacco marketing. While most associate Los Alamos with the Manhattan Project, over 50% of the spending was for facilities at Oak Ridge, TN. This would include the gaseous diffusion plant to extract fissionable uranium.
The Apollo program cost $19.5 billion which equates to $150 billion in 2019. It was considerably more expensive to put a human on the Moon than to build the atomic bomb. What both programs had in common is spending spiked before their successful conclusion. Funding for the Manhattan Project peaked in 1944 and the Apollo program in 1966. Spending surged to build the industrial plants at Oak Ridge and Hanover for uranium enrichment and for the development of the Saturn V rocket. If a politician proposes a modern type project of this nature without increasing spending in the front end, it’s not a serious proposal.
A key difference between the two programs was spending for the Manhattan Project was secret while the Apollo program was public. In his autobiography, Man of the House, Tip O’Neill relates John McCormack’s story how then Speaker Sam Rayburn arranged funding for the atomic bomb:
“Einstein estimated the project would cost two billion dollars. Not surprisingly, the president was concerned about how to allocate that kind of money without alerting either the public or the press.
“Leave it to me,” said Sam Rayburn.
The next day, Sam called all the committee and subcommittee chairmen and told them to put an extra hundred million dollars in their budgets.”
No questions were asked or meetings held while those funds were siphoned off to build the atomic bomb. In contrast, President Eisenhower mandated NASA’s work and results to be public. This was to differentiate from the highly secretive Soviet program. Funding Apollo was often contentious as it had to compete with other priorities (Vietnam War/Great Society). Public approval for Apollo spending topped 50% only once, that during the first Moon landing.
Sustainability
The Manhattan Project and Apollo Program had varying success in sustaining their mission. The key components of the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos and Oak Ridge remained in operation as national laboratories. No doubt, the Soviet success in 1947 with their own atomic bomb was the driving point. Many would argue the Manhattan Project was too sustainable. The original program built four atomic bombs. By the 1960’s, America had 30,000 nuclear warheads (the Soviets had 40,000 by the 1980’s). Since then, a series of treaties have caused a reduction of both stockpiles to a few thousand and atomic testing eliminated.
Apollo met a different fate. After the Moon landing was accomplished, President Nixon had no particular loyalty to the Kennedy inspired program. Once a recession hit in 1971, the final three missions (18-20) were cancelled. These were to be the major scientific phase of the program. Nixon directed NASA to work on the reusable Space Shuttle, thought to be a more economical means of space travel, but in reality, was more costly than expendable rockets. NASA has continued a robust planetary/observatory program, but its human program has not left Earth orbit since 1972.
Sustainability for both these programs were dependent upon political viability. During the Cold War, America felt the need to maintain nuclear superiority to the Soviet Union. While Americans generally wanted to stay ahead of the Soviet space program, this did not translate necessarily into human space exploration. NASA has far exceeded any other space agency in terms of planetary exploration, astrophysics, and Earth science. That gap is closing as developing nations such as China and India build their space programs.
Benefits
I’ll spare you the tales of NASA developing Velcro. Certainly private industry could have developed such a product. However, both programs contributed key innovations to American society.
As one might imagine, the Manhattan Project required solving complex mathematical problems. Given the urgency of the program, innovations were sought to speed up the process. John von Neumann expanded upon the IBM tabulating machines used at the project to build the first modern computer. The Apollo program began the miniaturization of the computer. While these computers were rudimentary compared to today, modern high tech has its roots in these programs.
The Manhattan Project kick started the field of nuclear medicine (used for imaging) and radiation treatments for cancer. The Apollo program contributed advancements for pacemakers, dialysis treatment, and development of CAT scan imaging. Both projects required the development of high-speed and powerful film imaging of the results of their work.
Often overlooked, given the political nature of the Apollo program, is its scientific contributions. Prior to Apollo, there were three competing ideas how the Moon was formed – capture (Earth’s gravity captured Moon), accretion (Earth & Moon formed together), and fission (Moon split off from Earth during formation). Apollo proved all three incorrect. The generally accepted theory supported by evidence brought back by Apollo is the Moon was formed in the aftermath of a Mars sized planet colliding with Earth. The key point here is a scientific idea, no matter how impressive it may by, needs to be supported by evidence to be proven.
While spinoffs are secondary to the primary objective of these programs, as we can see, they often have powerful impacts on the economy and society in general.
Analogies
The most obvious analogy today would be addressing climate change. It’s not a perfect analogy. Climate change is much larger and more international in scope, but there are some lessons to be culled.
The urgency of climate change is similar to the Manhattan Project. If the Soviets had beaten the U.S. to the Moon, it would have been distressing but not an existential threat. However, solving climate change does not require secrecy and any innovations on that front, as with NASA work, should be in the public domain. A large scale program to combat climate change would entail the following:
An upfront surge in spending as similar to both the Manhattan Project and Apollo, the time frame to solve this problem is exceedingly short.
A realization that such an effort will rely on a mixture of government/university/private sector initiatives. The worst thing we could do is introduce ideology into the program i.e. must be an all government or private sector effort. All 3,000,000 parts of the Saturn V was designed and built by private contractors. DuPont produced plutonium and Kellex designed the uranium enrichment plants for the Manhattan project.
What should the government do and what should be left to the private sector?
Historically, government has performed best at providing an infrastructure the private sector can innovate upon. Infrastructure can take many forms including transportation, research centers, and the internet (developed by state universities and CERN). NASA, for one, provides intensive remote sensing of Earth to monitor the climate.
As challenging as the problem of climate change appears, it has one major advantage over the Manhattan Project and Apollo. There are market forces sustaining the advancements to reduce carbon emissions. The cost of renewable energy is now competitive with fossil fuels. Unlike space exploration, where Pan-Am flights to the Moon were once envisioned, market forces now favor investment and research into renewable energy.
As hard as our current president might try, he’ll not be able to cancel the fight against climate change as Nixon cancelled Apollo.
But, and this is a big but, it will be difficult to provide an accurate cost estimate. Any program that relies on the invention of new technology to bring to completion will have this problem. It’s not like repaving a road. Budget overruns of this nature often provoke political blowback. Here is where political leadership is required to keep moving a program forward.
If, as is often said, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes”, taking the proper lessons from history along with some flexibility will enable us to solve today’s most urgent problems. Things looked bleak in 1941 and 1960, but a strong effort and resolve overcame the odds.
- Image atop post – left: Trinity Test, credit: Department of Energy, right: launch of Apollo 11, credit: NASA.
