The Manhattan Project Based on the Factors of Time, Cost and the Achievement of an Object - Essay Example

 Project Management Introduction The success of a project in measured in relation to the three major constrains namely time, quality and cost which depend on each other. Adjustment of one element requires that you adjust the other two elements. Proper balancing of the three elements ensures successful scheduling, resourcing and implementation of the project (Enterprise pm n.d.). The quality of the project indicates the desired result objective of the project. The cost includes all the resources need for the accomplishment of the stated objective that may include capital, labor, materials, and risk management among other requirements. Time is the duration of the project which can be broken down to the time required to accomplish every task within the project. Manhattan Project The Manhattan Project, like all other projects, was based on the factors of time, cost and the achievement of an object. The project was a military funded research project responsible for the creation of an atomic bomb. Most of the phases were carried out within the United States thus the main stakeholder was the United States Government. Other stakeholders included the rest of the Allied nations with Canada and United Kingdom providing support to the program (Friedman and Miles, 2006). The project started on a small scale but eventually grew to employee more than 130,000 people and the cost exceeding that of $2 billion, cost of which estimated in 2013 would have been $26 billion (The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2013). At the time of the start of this project the world was engaged in a fierce war. The Allied nations were doing everything in their power to end the war as soon as possible with as little few casualties as possible. The activities of the project and their time limit have been given in the Gantt chart below. The project has three main stages. First stage was Uranium 235 enrichment through gaseous diffusion, electromagnetic separation and thermal diffusion until 1945 when efficiency was raised to12730 pounds. The second stage was plutonium enrichment which was to be used as substitute for uranium 235. 95% pure plutonium was produced in February 1945. The final stage of bomb designed using plutonium and uranium. The first bomb was tested in the year 1594. The project was later transferred to Atomic Energy Commission and in August 1947 Manhattan Engineer District was ended (atomic archive.com). The Manhattan project used the theory of production in the construction of the bomb (Gilbreth and Gilbreth, 1922). Three basic phases were used in its construction planning, execution and control. These phases are measured in relation to the factors of productions that include time, resources and the scope of the project. Planning phase included a number of technical activities that needed to be addressed before the start of the construction. The first issue was the enrichment of fissile materials Uranium and Plutonium. Second phase was the structure and design of the bomb while third phase was the testing of the atomic bomb. Evaluation of the project Over several decades the success of projects has been assessed by the Iron Triangle that consists of time, quality and cost (Atkinson 1999). Project management involves use of resources, tools and techniques to achieve a specific assignment within the limits of cost, time and qualities (Atkinson 1999).Project managers has a responsibility of managing, planning, coordinating various activities in a project as well as managing the changes that occur in the duration of the project. According to Atkinson (1999), success of the project should also be measured in relation to benefits to all the stakeholders of the project as well as the final product and thus the success of as project should be measure at different stages of the project. Some projects have a positive impact at the initial stages but the set objectives are not achieved in due to time, quality and cost constrains. To understand the success of a project one must be aware of the objectives that the project set out to achieve. In 1939 Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner two of the most prominent physicists of their time drafted a letter that warned of a potentially deadly weapon. President Franklin D. Roosevelt took notice of the letter and ordered Lyman Briggs to conduct an investigation into the possibilities of the use of Uranium in the creation of such a weapon. The committee confirmed that Uranium could be used to create such a weapon (Hewlett & Anderson, 1962). In 1941 president Roosevelt gave the go ahead to setup an atomic program and allowed the United States army to head the project as they had more experience with dealing with large scale projects. To gain an advantage over Germany and its allies in the war United States, United Kingdom and Canada started working on the procurement of such a weapon and named their work as the Manhattan project. The basic objective of Manhattan project was to create a bomb that would release as much energy as possible using the process of nuclear fission. Since the project resulted in the discovery of such a weapon then it would be safe to assume that the project was relatively successful in achieving its goal. Time The Manhattan project comprised of a number of phases that combined together made the development of an atom bomb a possibility (Lenfle & Loch, 2009). The period of the project is broken down into the different phases. Uranium Enrichment The first and foremost challenge the project faced was obtaining Uranium 235 from its ore. The fact that Uranium 235 shared the majority of its properties with its isotopes Uranium 238 made it even more difficult to obtain it. Three methods were applied for the Uranium’s enrichment gaseous diffusion, electromagnetic separation and thermal diffusion (Reed, 2011). The first method of gaseous diffusion was thought to be the most efficient and most complex method for the obtainment of the Uranium. To obtain the Uranium from the process the United States military approved the construction of a gaseous diffusion plant. The key performance indicator regarding this process was the percentage of Uranium 235 that was extracted using this method. The plant started its operations in February 1945. Uranium enrichment increased with time; by April 1945 the percentage of enriched Uranium produced was 1.1%. By August the plant produced 7% enriched Uranium (Jones, 1985). The second method used for Uranium enrichment was electromagnetic separation. The process used a magnetic field to separate the charged isotopes with respect o their mass. The construction of an electromagnetic separation plant was started in February 1943 (Jones, 1985). The plant was codenamed as Y-12. The key performance indicators used to measure the efficiency of Y-12 was the amount of Uranium it enriched and the amount of Uranium feed that was produced as the final product. Initially in 1944 1 part of every 5825 parts of uranium was produced as the final product. However, by 1945 Uranium enrichment grew to 10% (Jones, 1985). The third method used for Uranium enrichment was thermal diffusion. Initially the research was not a part of Manhattan project and was headed by the United States navy. It was not until April 1944 that the project’s development and its results came to Oppenheimer’s attention. The construction of the plant started in June 1944 (Jones, 1985). The basic function of the plant was to extract uranium 235 using high temperature. The high temperature would separate the heavier element from that of the lighter one (Smyth, 1945). Operations at the plant started on 9th July 1944. The key performance indicator used at the thermal power plant was the percentage of Uranium it enriched and the percentage of Uranium 235 that it produced. In the month of October 1945 the plant only managed to produce 0.852% of Uranium 235. Experts deduced that leaks and frequent shutdowns of the plant were the main reason behind the low productivity. However, the plants performance dramatically increased in the months to come and in June 1945 the production in the plant grew to 12730 pounds. The production of the thermal power plant was fed to the gaseous diffusion plant and the product of the gaseous diffusion plant was fed to Y-12. The product of the Y-12 was enriched to around 89% making it suitable for the use of Nuclear weapons (Kelly, 2006). Plutonium enrichment As a backup researchers looked into plutonium as a substitute fissile material for Uranium. In nature Plutonium exists in very small amounts and on a large scale Plutonium is produced with the help of a nuclear reactor. Uranium 238 is heavily bombarded with neutrons to produce Uranium 239 which later on decays into Neptunium 239 and then into Plutonium 239. Plutonium enrichment process started with the construction of the X-10 graphite reactor. The X-10 graphite reactor was a prototype for a larger plant to be constructed later on. Initially in 1943 the X-10 graphite reactor successfully produced 40% plutonium from the Uranium. A few months later the efficiency of the plant grew to 90%. The procurement of Plutonium from Uranium was the key performance indicator used for this process (Cumming, 2009). The original plant was constructed at Hanford and designs of the plant included six reactors that were to be used for Plutonium production. The first batch of 95% pure plutonium was delivered in February 1945 (Hanford Cultural and Historic Resources Program, 2002). Bomb design: Two different bomb designs were proposed and developed in the Manhattan project. The first design was a gun type and used Uranium 235 as the fissile material (Hansen, 1995). The basic working of the bomb included two subcritical masses that were combined to form a critical mass and detonate the bomb. The two subcritical masses were termed as a bullet and a target (Hoddeson et al., 1993). The performance indicators used for the bomb designs were categorized in three different ways. The first was the detonation; experts had to make sure that the bomb detonated when needed. The second was the amount of energy the bomb released and the third was the safety of the bomb (Hoddeson et al., 1993). The design of the first bomb Little Boy was simple and the designers were certain that the bomb would detonate no matter what. The energy released by the bomb depended upon the fission of the Uranium 235. Proper fission of the material could have produced energy of thousand tons of explosives. However, poor fission or a design flaw could limit the energy released to that of a few tons of explosives (Hewlett and Anderson, 1962). The third category was the safety of the bomb. The aim of the designers was to ensure that the bomb exploded and that was one of the reasons for keeping the design of the bomb simple. This, however, compromised on the safety of the bomb. Accidental explosion of the bomb was highly probable and could have occurred in a number of scenarios. A simple short circuit within the bomb’s electrical system could have caused the bomb to explode (Wolfson, 2000). The second design developed was an implosion type weapon. The fissile material used was plutonium 239. Initially, scientists were focused on trying to develop a gun type design for the plutonium as well. However, scientists soon realized that a gun type weapon could not be used with plutonium, as it would result in pre-detonation of the bomb with little utilization of the plutonium (Garrett and Hart, 2007). The project managers implemented the critical theory by Morris (2002), to determine if the implosion design was feasable. The key performance indicators for the implosion design again were rated in three different categories. Regarding the reliability of the bomb’s detonation the tests proved that the detonation of the bomb was in fact eminent. Comparatively implosion type weapon was considered to be safer than the gun type weapon (Collins, 2013). Trinity tests: Trinity was a codename given to the testing of the first atomic bomb. The tests were carried out by the United States army in July 1945. The tests were basically conducted to record the working of the implosion designed weapon. The test site chosen for the test was a dessert by the name of Joranda Del Muerto a few kilometers from the city of New Mexico (Szasz, 1984). The news of the success of the tests was relayed to the president in a coded message (Alperovitz, 1995).The Manhattan project like any other project was constrained by time and resources to help its accomplishment. Quality The quality of the project is determined by the desired result. The project was a very secretive due to the nature of its end product and minimizes completion. However this could have compromised the quality of the project due to limited research, lack of proper information among the employees. Cost Cost is the total price of all resources used in a project which may include capital, raw materials and labor. According to The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (2013), the cost of the project is estimated to $ 2 billion which when is projected to be about $26 in the year 20113. The cost was not a setback for the limitation since the government was willing to invest on the project. The cost of the project included cost of employing more than 130, 000 staff, construction of the plants and facilities and cost of the chemical elements among others resources (Calore n.d.). Huge investment was in construction of plants and the development of the elements compared to the designing of the bomb at Los Alamos and therefore major cost was in the industrial development than in the project development and management. More than 90% of the funding was spent on the construction of factories and the production and refinement of fissionable material. The rest of the 10% was used for the final production and development of the bomb itself. Despite the complexity of the project and the investment the project was successful as the need capital was readily availed. Factors that affected the outcome of the Manhattan project: Secrecy: Secrecy was one of the most stressed upon factors at the sites of Manhattan project. It is estimated that only a handful of people knew exactly what the project was about prior the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Wickware, 1945). Censorship: The start of the war initiated a great deal of censorship of research articles regarding any atomic research. Scientist themselves were reluctant to publish materials related to any research being conducted for the military, Navy or the United States Air force (Sweeney, 2001). The government relied mainly on the cooperation of the press to help them censor and restrict the publications that could compromise on the national security of the country. Espionage: The large scale of the project made it difficult for the government to ensure tight security and rule out the factor of espionage and sabotage. Lieutenant Colonel Boris T. Pash was given the task of providing security to the project. Oppenheimer informed Pash about being approached by a colleague regarding passing of documents to the Russians (Jones, 1985). Despite all the security measures soviet spies still managed to penetrate into the project and were able to pass on vital documents to the Soviet Union. Recommendations The use of atomic bombs to this day has steered controversy amongst many historians with some people supporting it while other are against it. The project lacked thorough analysis regarding the ethical use of such a weapon on areas with a significant civilian population. Most historians argue that the stubbornness of the Japanese government forced the United States government to use the bombs. However, little research was done into alternate methods of ending the war. Time is an important factor in regard to the project development. It accounts for the duration of each stage of the project. The project was completed on time as most phases occurred concurrently. There is need for better analysis on the project since most time was spent in development of uranium and plutonium that in the development of the bomb. The project resulted to industrial growth in the region during the development of the reserve weapons. The quality of the product could have been compromised due to the high level of secrecy in the project. Some of the employees were not aware of the end product of the project. The frustration and confusion amongst the employees was a common sight. These feelings often compromised on the morale of the workers. The end of the war in Europe further added to their frustration they eventually started feeling that their efforts were being wasted in a pointless project. To boost the morale of the workers officials of the Manhattan project formed various sports teams and organized various sporting events (White, 2002). The employees should have been educated of the sensitivity of the project. The project involved exploitation and modification of the natural chemical elements into high reactive products that could have accidentally exploded. There was need for the researchers to evaluate the possibility of using less explosive material since most employees were not fully informed on the project. To reduce competition and duplication of the project there was high level of secrecy which acted as a limitation due to availability of the information to the public. Competition is necessary since all the stakeholders are able to benefit. Majority of scientists involved in the project agreed to the idea of demonstration of the effects of using the atomic bomb so that all stakeholders can make informed decision. However, the army was not very keen on using its resources to look into the solution and instead opted for a nuclear strike figuring that a nuclear strike would have a greater psychological effect on the Japanese government (Frisch, 1970). Conclusion: The project led to revolution in the world of engineering, chemistry, physics and politics. The initial stages of the project involve extensive research on the project development. The chemical elements were developed simultaneously which led to the formation of several industrial chemical. The construction of manufacturing and research plants and facilities led to industrial and infrastructural growth. The success of the project can be measured by the goals and the objectives of the project as well as other milestones that were achieved such as industrial growth. The use of the atomic weapons to this day remains a controversial topic and many believe that the United States government rushed into the use of nuclear weapons. The concern stakeholders should develop measure to mitigate the effects of the atomic bombs. References Alperovitz, G 1995. The decision to use the atomic bomb and the architecture of an American myth. New York. Atkinson, R 1999. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 6, pp The Business School, Bournemouth University. Atomic archive.com (n.d). The Manhattan project: Making the atomic bomb. Manhattan project chronology. Calore, P (n.d). Cost to develop the first atomic bomb: What the first atomic bomb cost to develop. What it cost. http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-atomic-bomb-pg2.htm Collins, A 2013. Contemporary security studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cumming, J.G 2009. 128 places where science and technology come alive. The Geek Atlas. O'Reilly Media. Enterprise, PM (n.d). The triple constraint: The triple constraints of projects: quality cost and schedule. Friedman, A.L & Miles, S 2006. Stakeholders: Theory and practice: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Frisch, D.H 1970. Scientists and the decision to bomb Japan. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 26(6), p.107–115. Garrett, B.C and Hart, J 2007. The A to Z of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. Plymouth: Scarecrow Press. Gilbreth, F.B and Gilbreth, L.M 1922. Process charts and their place in management. Mechanical Engineering, 2(70), pp.38-41. Hanford Cultural and Historic Resources Program, 2002. History of the Plutonium production facilities. Research. Richland: U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy. Hansen, C 1995. Volume V: US nuclear weapons histories. Swords of Armageddon: US nuclear weapons development since 1945. Sunnyville: Chukelea Publications. Hewlett, R.G. and Anderson, O.E 1962. The new world, 1939–1946. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press Pennsylvania State University. Hoddeson, L, Henriksen, P.W, Meade, R.A and Westfall, C.L., 1993. Critical assembly: A technical history of Los Alamos during the Oppenheimer years, 1943–1945. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jones, V 1985. Manhattan: The army and the atomic bomb. Washington D.C: United States Army Center of Military History. Kelly, C.C 2006. Oppenheimer and The Manhattan project: Insights into J Robert Oppenheimer. Rosewood: World Scientific. Morris, P.W.G 2002. Managing project management knowledge for organisational effectiveness. In Proceedings of PMI Research Conference 2002. Seattle, 2002. Project Management Institute. Nokes, S 2007. The definitive guide to project management. New Dehli: Pearson Education India. Reed, C 2011. The Physics of the Manhattan Project. New York: Springer. Smyth, H.D 1945. Atomic energy for military purposes: the official report on the development of the atomic bomb under the auspices of the United States Government. Research. Princeton: Princeton University press Princeton University. Sweeney, M.S 2001. Secrets of victory: the office of censorship and the American press and radio in World War II. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Szasz, F.M 1984. The day the sun rose twice: the story of the trinity site nuclear explosion july 16, 1945. New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2013. Consumer price index (estimate) 1800-. [Accessed 4 June 2013]. White, L.G 2002. The Manhattan project heritage preservation association, Inc [Accessed 09 June 2013]. Wickware, F.S 1945. Manhattan project: Its scientists have harnessed nature's basic force. Life, 20 August. p.91. Wolfson, R 2000. Nuclear choices: A citizen's guide to nuclear technology. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Read More