Matrix Games Forums

I was watching the "American Experience" on PBS last night about Okinawa and the surrender of Japan. The show stated that the entire B-29 program (from development to final production) cost more than the Manhattan Project. Is this true?

I always thought that the MP was THE most expensive wartime project ever (adjusting for inflation, etc.).

I thought it was too-I heard the same stats on the same show a couple weeks ago. Dunno what the facts are-I had clearly underestimated the expense of the B-29 program though!

Government accounting- What answer do you want?[8|]

Saw that last night also. Even though I was aware, how striking was the comparison of the B29 assembly line vs the Japanese factories crafting airline parts by hand?

Manhattan Project Costs = $1,889,604,000 (Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information Center, 1972), pp. 723-724.)

B-29 Program Costs = $2,537,576,360 (Knaack, Marcelle Size. Post-World War II bombers, 1945–1973. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1988.)

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Manhattan Project Costs = $1,889,604,000 (Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information Center, 1972), pp. 723-724.)

B-29 Program Costs = $2,537,576,360 (Knaack, Marcelle Size. Post-World War II bombers, 1945–1973. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1988.)

Holy smokes, Batman!!! Thanks for the references.

BLAH!  That can't be true just to develop the bomber.  It is the cost of all 3970 B-29's, each costed $639,188...which multiplied happens to be the exact amount of the figures posted above.

Now that I read the whole posting....I stand corrected, I misread usersatch worded question.....WOW!  Thats alot of WW2 era dough!

Of course the B-29 was the only aircraft capable of delivering the A-bomb for some time. So, you can add them together to get the cost of having and being able to use an A-bomb!

ORIGINAL: ckk

Government accounting- What answer do you want?[8|]

This!

And I make a living of governmental accounting myself

They included the bases and the factorys in those estimates for the B-29 while they did not include the reactor in the Manhattan bomb estimates.

They included the bases and the factorys in those estimates for the B-29 while they did not include the reactor in the Manhattan bomb estimates.

Technically the Manhattan project didn't need the reactor....

There were 2 totally different bombs created.  The reason for this was that the production rate for one of the fuels was too slow for continued operation and the other was developed.  They both do not require a reactor....  Not going to go too far into this but there are some nuclear weapons that are not that hard to build.  It is however very hard to keep the critical mass of these fuels close enough long enough to get the desired result.

Interesting note.  The way they verified the calculations on critical mass were quite simple.  They dropped one block past the other and saw how much the falling piece was deflected by the reaction as it started....  Amazing what we were willing to do in the past.  I would think that today OSHA would freak at what actually went on in the Manhattan project.

The Russians got it in 1945, right down to rivet detail and overheating engies. Didn't cost them hardly a dime in R&D!

Interesting Zace nice to know these small details

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Of course the B-29 was the only aircraft capable of delivering the A-bomb for some time. So, you can add them together to get the cost of having and being able to use an A-bomb!

Good point. I am wondering if some "sources" use the combined numbers when referring to the most expensive war project ever.

They included all the bases(worldwide) they had to extend to accomodate the B-29 and the New factories Boeing built to make the B-29. 

Interesting Zace nice to know these small details

Nuclear weapons arn't as hard as people make them out to be......  Why do you think a country that can't make a decent car can make one?

To be honest it is much harder to make a quality complicated item like a car or airplane than atomic weapons.  Especially if you don't have to have it deliverable......

ORIGINAL: zace

Interesting Zace nice to know these small details

Nuclear weapons arn't as hard as people make them out to be......  Why do you think a country that can't make a decent car can make one?

To be honest it is much harder to make a quality complicated item like a car or airplane than atomic weapons.  Especially if you don't have to have it deliverable......

What a comforting thought that is!!!

Lord, help us!

ORIGINAL: zace
Nuclear weapons arn't as hard as people make them out to be......  Why do you think a country that can't make a decent car can make one?

Now, there is a bit more to a sophisticated weapon like this than you think, clearly more knowledge and engineering than required for an average plane or ship. But the required knowledge is a accessible in text books and published scientific journals, it only requires you to have some solid background in physics that you'd get as a Diploma student in Germany, or a PhD level in the US. Major in radio-physics and nuclear energy wouldn't be best. One of the major challenges in developing such a bomb is the acquisition of enough raw material, though. But even that is basically available to any nation, but a matter of cost.
That is why I believe there is no way to stop nuclear proliferation other than to apply the same logic and law to everyone: Every nation should have the right to have one, or none. Just fairness and freedom. But if none had one, then the driving force to waste billions of $$ into such technology would be much much smaller across the world. If you just fight the spreading, you fight the symptoms, but not the root cause. That has never worked very well.


But very interesting original question! I wouldn't see the B-29 as requirement for the nuclear bomb deployment (maybe for the safe return of the crews, though, but possibly a Lancaster could have done the same as easily).

The basic science and associated engineering to make a fission bomb that will go boom are not that difficult and certainly are not hard to find. Now the science and especially the engineering to make a bomb with minimum material and maximum output is a different thing entirely and even then it may not work thus the need for continued testing (underground after the atmospheric test ban).