The Madness of Moonshots and Manhattan Projects
The Manhattan Project and Apollo program are often celebrated as triumphs of government-led ambition, proof that massive, state-driven “moonshots” can solve grand challenges. Advocates point to technological spinoffs like Velcro or computer miniaturization as evidence of their economic value, arguing they justify replicating such models for modern problems like climate change or cybersecurity. This is a dangerous misconception. These projects were exorbitantly expensive, relied on pre-existing private innovation, and left unsustainable legacies that hindered progress. The Manhattan Project skewed nuclear power’s potential, transforming a promising source of medicine and electricity into a symbol of warfare. Apollo, meanwhile, built on private-sector technologies only to leave NASA adrift for decades, its mission creep exposed until SpaceX’s profit-driven model unlocked space’s true potential. Had space travel been commercialized earlier, innovations like satellite-based phones, fire detection, and crop management could have transformed economies sooner. Unlike private companies, which are disciplined by the profit motive to use common materials and meet real-world needs, government moonshots waste resources on exotic solutions and rigid goals, delivering fleeting wins at the expense of sustainable economic growth. Today, privatized space travel is delivering breakthroughs like Corning’s extra-clear fiber optics, showing what markets can achieve when freed from bureaucratic constraints.
The Manhattan Project’s Warped Legacy for Nuclear Power
Before World War II, nuclear research was poised to revolutionize medicine and energy. Early pioneers like Ernest Rutherford, who discovered the atomic nucleus in 1911, laid the foundation for understanding atomic structure. Enrico Fermi, achieving the first controlled nuclear reaction in 1934, saw fission as a source of abundant electricity to power cities and industries. Marie Curie’s work on radioactivity in the early 1900s pioneered radiation therapy for cancer, demonstrating nuclear science’s medical promise. Leo Szilard, who patented a nuclear reactor concept in 1934, envisioned clean energy transforming economies. These scientists, often funded by universities or private institutions, operated in a decentralized environment where curiosity and societal needs drove innovation.
The Manhattan Project, launched in 1942 at a cost of $11 billion annually (in 2018 dollars), derailed this trajectory. Driven by wartime urgency to build an atomic bomb, it redirected nuclear research toward destruction. The project’s success—culminating in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—cemented nuclear power’s public image as a weapon, not a tool for progress. Post-war, fear of nuclear annihilation fueled regulatory barriers and public distrust, making commercial nuclear power plants costly and slow to build. By 2025, nuclear energy accounts for just 10% of global electricity, despite its potential to address climate change more effectively than subsidized renewables. The Manhattan Project’s centralized, militarized approach stifled the market’s ability to develop nuclear power commercially, delaying innovations in energy and medicine that could have emerged decades earlier in a freer, profit-driven ecosystem.
Apollo’s Dependence on Private Innovation and Decades of Drift
The Apollo program, which landed humans on the moon in 1969, is often credited with spinoffs like Velcro and computer miniaturization. But this narrative overstates NASA’s role. Velcro, developed in the 1940s by Swiss engineer George de Mestral, was already commercially available by the 1950s, used in clothing and medical equipment. NASA popularized Velcro during Apollo, adapting it for astronaut suits, but didn’t invent it. Similarly, computer miniaturization, critical to Apollo’s guidance systems, built on private-sector advancements. Firms like Fairchild Semiconductor and IBM had been developing integrated circuits since the late 1950s for commercial and military applications, driven by market demand for smaller, faster electronics. NASA’s role was to integrate these technologies, not create them, channeling $12 billion annually (in today’s dollars) into a politically motivated goal fueled by Cold War rivalry.
Once Apollo succeeded, NASA faced a void. Its singular focus—landing on the moon—left no clear path for sustained exploration or commercialization. For nearly 50 years, the agency floundered, cycling through costly, uncoordinated projects like the Space Shuttle and International Space Station, which lacked Apollo’s transformative impact. NASA’s budget, which peaked at 4.5% of GDP during Apollo, shrank as public interest faded, leaving a bloated bureaucracy struggling for relevance. This mission creep persisted until SpaceX, driven by profit and efficiency, revolutionized space travel. By developing reusable rockets and cutting launch costs by orders of magnitude, SpaceX turned space into a viable commercial frontier, enabling applications like Starlink’s satellite internet and demonstrating that markets, not mandates, drive sustainable progress.
Missed Opportunities in Space
The privatization of space travel, led by companies like SpaceX, has shown what government-led programs delayed. Had commercialization occurred earlier—say, in the 1970s or 1980s—the economic and technological benefits could have been transformative. Cheaper launches could have enabled satellite constellations like Iridium or Globalstar to scale decades sooner, making satellite phones ubiquitous for remote regions and disaster response. Real-time satellite data could have been deployed earlier to monitor forest fires, saving lives and property, or to optimize crop watering, boosting agricultural efficiency by analyzing soil moisture and weather patterns. These capabilities, now enabled by private firms, were stifled by NASA’s reliance on costly, bespoke systems like the Space Shuttle, which kept launch prices high and delayed the commercial space economy. The global space economy, valued at $630 billion in 2023 and projected to reach $1.8 trillion by 2035, owes its growth to private innovation, not state-led moonshots.
The Profit Motive: Efficiency Over Extravagance
Private companies, unlike government moonshots, are disciplined by the profit motive, ensuring resources are used efficiently and innovations align with market needs. A key economic advantage is their preference for common, cost-effective materials over exotic ones. SpaceX’s Falcon rockets use standardized alloys and off-the-shelf components, minimizing costs while maintaining reliability. Starlink’s satellites, powered by affordable argon thrusters and compact designs, enable scalable launches. This contrasts with NASA’s Space Shuttle, which relied on specialized ceramics for heat shields, driving up expenses and complexity. Similarly, the Manhattan Project’s use of rare isotopes and Apollo’s custom-built Saturn V rocket were engineering feats, but their costs were unsustainable outside wartime or geopolitical contexts.
The profit motive also forces companies to pivot or abandon unviable projects. Google’s X lab scrapped over 100 initiatives, including a vertical farming project that couldn’t grow staple crops. Government moonshots, unaccountable to market feedback, often cling to failing programs for political reasons. Private firms, by building on existing technologies and materials, create scalable, commercially viable products that drive economic growth, from Tesla’s electric vehicles to Starlink’s global internet.
Privatization’s Payoff: Innovations Available Now
Today, the privatization of space travel is delivering breakthroughs that government-led programs could only dream of. SpaceX’s reusable rockets have slashed launch costs, enabling a new era of commercial applications. Starlink’s low-orbit constellation provides global broadband with latency as low as 25 milliseconds, revolutionizing connectivity. Companies like Ansys leverage 3D printing, refined in microgravity, to build spacecraft efficiently and explore applications like 3D-printed organs for medical transplants. Corning, a leader in glass and materials science, is now harnessing space’s microgravity to produce extra-clear fiber optics, free from Earth’s gravitational imperfections. These ultra-low-loss fibers promise to transform telecommunications, enabling faster, more reliable data transfer for industries and consumers. These innovations, driven by profit and market demand, show what’s possible when private firms, not bureaucrats, lead the way. Had space travel been privatized earlier, such advancements could have reshaped economies decades ago.
The Case Against Moonshots
Moonshots are seductive but wasteful. The proposed “cybersecurity moonshot” of 2018, with costs estimated at $50 billion to $100 billion, illustrates the risks: vague goals, massive budgets, and no assured outcomes. Modern mission-oriented policies, like the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act’s cleantech subsidies, risk propping up unviable projects or politically connected firms, distorting markets and fostering cronyism. Brazil’s state-led shipbuilding initiatives, which squandered billions without creating competitive industries, serve as a warning.
These projects stifle the decentralized experimentation that fuels economic progress. Markets thrive on dispersed knowledge—entrepreneurs testing ideas, failing fast, and adapting to consumer needs. Government missions, reliant on bureaucrats to pick winners, ignore these signals, misallocating resources and suppressing innovation. Programs like the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research initiative, which fund market-driven projects, consistently outperform moonshots in fostering sustainable growth.
A Better Path: Unleash the Market
The Manhattan Project and Apollo were products of their time—wartime urgency and Cold War rivalry. Their successes came at a steep cost. The Manhattan Project derailed nuclear power’s peaceful potential, while Apollo’s reliance on private innovations like Velcro and computer miniaturization masked decades of NASA’s bureaucratic drift. Had space travel been privatized earlier, technologies like satellite phones, fire detection, crop management, and now Corning’s extra-clear fiber optics could have transformed economies sooner, driven by market efficiency rather than government largesse.
Instead of betting on centralized moonshots, we should foster an environment where individuals and firms innovate freely. Policies that reduce regulatory barriers, protect property rights, and encourage competition unleash the market’s ability to solve problems organically. SpaceX’s reusable rockets and Starlink’s global internet show what’s possible when profit, not politics, drives progress. By trusting the decentralized genius of market-driven innovation, we can achieve sustainable growth without squandering resources on overhyped moonshots.