Those two examples are government-run projects and in the case of the Manhattan project were part of a scheme with the main purpose of murdering people at a mass scale. The question there was more how much would we have had to pay those people not to do what they did.

These aren't good comparisons for someone who is doing work we expect, in advance, to be a net good. It isn't a particularly powerful comparison - we already might expect that private markets pay better just because people are deployed to useful work. It is actually a pretty reasonable suspicion that this bloke is going to do more than 300x as much good as Oppenheimer, both morally and commercially. Any deaths as a result of his direct work will be accidental.