November 24th Chang'e 5 Lunar Mission Launch

China Rejects NASA Claim They Want to Take Over the Moon

Essay by Eric Worrall

 A fascinating war of words has erupted between NASA and the CCP, over China’s space intentions.

China Rebuts Weaponization of Space Program Claim by NASA Administrator

By Mary Hong 

July 6, 2022 Updated: July 6, 2022

China has denied that it is attempting to take over the moon via its space program, a concern expressed by NASA administrator Bill Nelson in a recent interview.

Nelson told German outlet Bild on July 2, “We must be very concerned that China is landing on the moon and saying: It’s ours now and you stay out.”

The purpose of China’s space program, Nelson said, “is a military space program,” and its accomplishments are built on technology theft.

The Chinese regime has denied Nelson’s allegations.

“This is not the first time that the NASA administrator has lashed out at China in disregard of facts,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian.

Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-rebuts-weaponization-of-space-program-claim-by-nasa-administrator_4579757.html

The video below is WION News’ take on the China / USA spat. WION interviewed Carnegie Institute East Asia expert Michael Swaine , who thinks NASA is just fear mongering to scare up more budget.

China has announced plans for a permanent moon base, which they see as a stepping stone to the rest of the solar system, and a manned mission to Mars. The USA may have had plans for a permanent moon base by 1980 during the Apollo programme, serviced by nuclear powered launchers, like the launchers Russia has allegedly developed, but the plans were shelved after the US anti-nuclear movement frightened off the politicians.

In 2019 the USA dusted off its plans for a nuclear rocket programme, presumably in response to Russian advances, but I haven’t found any news of plans for an imminent US nuclear space launch.

5 7 votes
Article Rating
92 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 6, 2022 10:29 am

The Biden Administration has too many greens, who are commonly also Luddites. As they never learned anything about nuclear power in Art History or Women’s Studies, they oppose it.

Felix
July 6, 2022 10:33 am

The idea that any single country could “take over” the moon is beyond ludicrous. It’s sheer lunacy!

Vuk
Reply to  Felix
July 6, 2022 10:53 am

Has China hijacked Nasa’s moon probe ? /sarc
NASA Loses Contact With Moon Probe, Delays Trajectory Correction Capstone, a microwave-sized spacecraft, is meant to pave the way for future Artemis missions to the lunar surface.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Vuk
July 6, 2022 12:05 pm

” . . . a microwave-sized spacecraft . . .”

Hmmmm . . . the microwave region of the EM spectrrum extends from 1,000 to 300,000 MHz (or 30 cm to 1 mm wavelength).

I wonder if 30 cm (12″) or 1 mm (0.040″) is the most fitting description of the size of that “Moon probe”?

If the latter, there is no wonder that it was lost/misplaced.

Vuk
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 6, 2022 12:27 pm

I wonder how easy/difficult would be to hack into probe’s software and take control of it.
Possibly one of the important tools of any future space warfare.

AndyHce
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 6, 2022 1:12 pm

You do realize that “microwave” is lazy people’s, and general populace’s ignorance of what words mean, term for a microwave oven?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  AndyHce
July 6, 2022 6:29 pm

Yeah, but do you realize that Vuk’s post to which I was replying specifically referred to a “microwave-sized spacecraft”?

This is not being “lazy” . . . but it does reflect ignorance of plain English . . . and by more than one person in this case.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
AndyHce
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 11:25 am

The article uses ‘microwave sized’ where it obviously means the size of a microwave oven. Lazy, thoughtless language use is an embarrassment but as when taking high school “achievement” tests, it usually isn’t very hard to choose the “right” answer even though that isn’t a true answer. One choose the answer the test makers want because arguing about it is completely profitless.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Felix
July 6, 2022 12:06 pm

Yeah, like a land war in Europe today backed up by nuke threats.

Felix
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 6, 2022 12:19 pm

What benefit does a moon-based nuke have over the hundreds or thousands of land- and sub-based ICBMs for the same price?

MarkW
Reply to  Felix
July 6, 2022 12:50 pm

You don’t need nukes if you are dropping them from the moon. Big rocks will wipe out a city as easily as a nuke.

Jit
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 1:45 pm

Hm. But you can’t drop a rock from the moon, can you?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Jit
July 6, 2022 3:45 pm

Of course not. You use a trebuchet.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 6, 2022 7:39 pm

Best show evah

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
July 7, 2022 7:10 am

That trebuchet would have to have some outstandingly accurate aiming capability . . . better than the best of today’s military artillery . . . given that rocks do not have guidance and propulsion capabilities to perform any mid-course correction(s) between the Moon and Earth impact.

Same issue applies for the far more scientifically feasible concepts that propose using rail guns to launch just Moon rocks or refined metal slugs toward Earth from the Moon’s surface.

Similarly, this would also be an issues with any futuristic weapon classified as a “photon torpedo”, as once launched from a spaceship on a given velocity vector the photon burst is destined to stay on that vector despite it be targeted toward a (presumably) maneuvering target.

Such facts, of course, are not considered by mass consumers of fantasy.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 8:13 am

So you put a couple of small rockets on the rock for post dropping course correction. Still a lot cheaper than nukes.

As to photon torpedoes, that’s the reason why so many miss.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 9:18 am

1) Ahhh . . . OK, but what tells the “small rockets” attached to any rock when to fire and in what direction to fire . . and where do the rockets get their propellant(s) . . . and what provides the energy to open the propellant valves on the rockets . . . and what process is used to align the course-correction rockets to the center-of-mass of the rock, or are ACS thrusters also needed to stabilize/orient the rock prior to firing the “divert” thrusters . . .

Some many engineering questions, so few answers to such.

2) It is, therefore, even stranger that so many photon torpedoes are actually shown hitting spaceships in fantasy space battles, with protection against such direct hits being afforded by deflector shields, albeit some losing effectiveness in doing so, a la:
“Scotty, our deflector shields are down to 25%, you’ve got to give me more power!”

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 5:29 pm

Guidance systems are cheap, and fuel can be generated on the moon from local materials.

They call it science fiction for a reason.

Are you just in a bad mood today, or are you normally this anal?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 6:18 pm

.

Richard Page
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 12:33 pm

I’m sorry but wouldn’t the trebuchet just have to get the rock into a rough area and let Earth’s gravity do the rest? Given the calculations involved in getting a rocket to the moon and back I don’t think it’ll be as big a problem as you think. Don’t forget that this isn’t about hitting a target in open space – it’s dropping a stone down a (gravity) well and waiting for it to hit the bottom. 1 city rather than somewhere in a hemisphere might be an issue but still.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 1:51 pm

Well, it depends.

From the surface of the Moon, the Earth subtends an average total angle of 1.9 degrees (about four times the angular size of a full Moon as seen from Earth). That’s still a relatively small target in the sky.

So, is your question regarding “rough area” in the context of just hitting Earth or instead targeting a specific location on Earth?

Given that the Moon has a substantial orbital (i.e., tangential) velocity with respect to the Earth, any object launched from it will retain that velocity component unless is it specifically negated. Thus shooting a rock directly toward the Earth will only place it in a highly elliptical orbit around Earth, not on a trajectory to impact Earth.

The laws of orbital mechanics, not just Earth’s gravity, “does the rest”.

It is not at all like “dropping a stone down a (gravity) well and waiting for it to hit the bottom”, with all due respect to you thinking it’s not a big problem.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Richard Page
Reply to  Jit
July 7, 2022 6:47 am

You can if you push it half way first!

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 8:14 am

Don’t need to go half way, since the moon’s mass is about 1/6th that of the Earth.

Not Chicken Little
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 12:09 pm

The mass of the Moon is only about 1/81st that of the Earth. Its gravitational pull at its surface is about 1/6th of the Earth’s.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Felix
July 7, 2022 5:47 am

Technically, nations tend to “take turns” controlling things.

Richard Page
Reply to  Coach Springer
July 7, 2022 6:48 am

And then, with one or two exceptions, throw a tantrum when its someone elses turn.

fretslider
July 6, 2022 10:37 am

When will NASA ditch SLS in favour of something more affordable – and reusable?

Spetzer86
Reply to  fretslider
July 6, 2022 10:42 am

Why, did Elon make an offer to buy NASA?

fretslider
Reply to  Spetzer86
July 6, 2022 10:45 am

Not that I’m aware of.

Why, do you think he should?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Spetzer86
July 6, 2022 12:06 pm

Ego.

MarkW
Reply to  Spetzer86
July 6, 2022 12:51 pm

He doesn’t need to, he’s building his own.

TBeholder
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 9:29 am

I decide to stop posting dank moldbuggery for one day, and not 10 minutes later see someone feeding a good line… Every time.

Replacing organizations is simple. Purging individuals or subunits from existing ones is impossibly time-consuming, tendentious and pointless. If you wanted to convert Tony Soprano’s mob into an actual, legitimate waste management company, what would you do, start by replacing Paulie Walnuts with some guy from McKinsey? When in doubt, throw it out.

Revipedia: how to defeat the US government, reprise by Mencius Moldbug.

Spetzer86
July 6, 2022 10:41 am

I can’t imagine NASA revisiting the nuclear rocket program. I could see Musk offering to rig one for Starship as it could be a really good interplanetary motor.

R Taylor
July 6, 2022 10:48 am

Gotta give NASA top marks for lunacy, first with the carbon monster in the sky and now this. The trouble is, such lunacy casts doubt on more plausible warnings from officialdom, such as today’s jointly from the FBI and MI5: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-62064506.

But here’s a great idea, let’s make ourselves dependent on you-know-who for essential materials of our fantastic new “economy”.

MarkW
Reply to  R Taylor
July 6, 2022 11:23 am

Interesting juxtaposition. Complaining about lunacy in an article about the moon.

July 6, 2022 11:02 am

Once they have control over the Moon, they will threaten to drop it onto the US.

Drake
Reply to  E. Schaffer
July 6, 2022 11:21 am

The Moon is the high ground. To allow a communist country to control the high ground would be a total failure for the US.

BUT even if the US were to gain and maintain the control of the Moon, how long before the US becomes a communist country? The “communist control” end would only be delayed.

MarkW
Reply to  Drake
July 6, 2022 11:24 am

Read, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”.

Felix
Reply to  Drake
July 6, 2022 11:41 am

Pray tell, how can any single country “take over” the entire moon? Aside from the very idea of “taking over” something as big as the moon, there’s fiscal reality. I’d guess even a ten man astronomy outpost would cost $100B a year and be far too dependent on steady resupply to be an dependable military asset, let alone useful — what’s it going to do, launch a single ICBM to earth? What advantage does it offer over the hundreds or thousands you could afford for the same money?

James B.
Reply to  Felix
July 6, 2022 12:24 pm

A Moon base could be a profit center, if resource exploitation was done properly.

Felix
Reply to  James B.
July 6, 2022 1:07 pm

Where “properly” means in a free market. Government subsidies are not proper.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  James B.
July 7, 2022 8:04 am

Pigs just might be able to fly if they had wings.

MarkW
Reply to  Felix
July 6, 2022 12:53 pm

Once you are established, it’s pretty easy to prevent other countries from establishing their own bases.

Not nukes, but dropping hundreds of rocks could wipe out most of the cities of any country that opposes you.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 8:06 am

You simply cannot “drop” anything from the Moon’s surface onto the Earth’s surface. Look up the term “escape velocity”.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 8:16 am

Look up the term “sarcasm”.
I also didn’t say anything about cancelling out orbital velocity.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 9:29 am

“Cancelling out” orbital velocity is NOT required with proper targeting, including the implementation of mid-course corrections.

In fact such would be detrimental to the objective of using a Moon rock (or other object) to impart maximum possible kinetic energy to a target on Earth’s surface.

BTW, this post is not sarcastic, just so you know.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 5:36 pm

I never said you were sarcastic.
DId someone piss in your cereal this morning, or are you always this anal?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 6:22 pm

.

Richard Page
Reply to  Felix
July 7, 2022 6:52 am

What was the cost of building a few man-made islands on rocky outcrops in the South China Sea? And for what; they’re useless as airbases or military outposts. China is very much into the big grandstand gestures.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 8:17 am

What they do is allow China to claim the waters around those man-made islands.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 12:35 pm

No they haven’t. It had virtually the opposite effect.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Drake
July 6, 2022 12:15 pm

The Moon is the “high ground” with a substantial gravity well.

Also any point on the Moon, except for the two poles, has 354 hour-long nights (i.e., intervals of no solar illumination) during every 29.5 day lunar month.

There are practical engineering limitations associated with these facts.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 6, 2022 12:54 pm

Nuclear power would solve the problem of long nights.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 7:27 am

That hasn’t worked out too well here on Earth, even for short nights, has it?

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 8:18 am

I don’t know what Earth you live on, but for the one I live on, it has worked out very, very well.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 9:40 am

The Kyshtym disaster?

Three Mile Island?

The Chernobyl disaster?

The Fukushima disaster?

The current and long-ongoing significant problems of storage of long-lived radioactive waste from nuclear power plants?

Yes, our two “planets” (hah!) have very different definitions of what the phrase “has worked out very, very well” means.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 5:40 pm

Yes, even with those, nuclear has worked out very, very well.

More people have died building wind mills than have been killed by nuclear power.
More people have died in coal mining accidents than have killed by nuclear power.
More people have died drilling for oil than have been killed by nuclear power.

The biggest problem with TMI and Fukushima was government over reactions.
Chernobyl was a problem caused by government corruption, not nuclear power.

Nuclear power is by far the safest, cleanest and cheapest form of power in existence. Only those who refuse to deal with reality are against it.

MarkW
Reply to  E. Schaffer
July 6, 2022 11:23 am

If all the moon bases are placed on the same side, will it tip over?

Felix
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 1:08 pm

Capsizing would only prove there is water to be had. Success!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 3:47 am

Will it tip over? We better ask Representative Hank Johnson. He’s an expert on tipping points. He’s the guy that thinks the island of Guam could be on the verge of tipping over if one side is overloaded with facilities.

Doonman
July 6, 2022 11:18 am

The only thing politicians are afraid of is losing an election. Fighting a war with China over the moon is fair game since people are not opposed to that.

Gordon A. Dressler
July 6, 2022 11:57 am

As regards any nation that plans to put a permanent manned station on the Moon for any possible reason, I can offer no better reply than this, spoken by the character “Mr. Spock” in the original TV series Star Trek:

“. . . she is yours. After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.”
—Mr. Spock, Star Trek episode “Amok Time”, 1967

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 6, 2022 12:59 pm

There are plenty of resources on the moon, and it provides an excellent platform for exploring/exploiting the rest of the solar system.
Rockets could be built from lunar materials and put into lunar orbit for a tiny fraction of the cost of launching the same from Earth.
At first all the high tech stuff will have to be sent from Earth, however the frame is most of the weight.
As time goes on, I would expect the ability of lunar factories to improve and start taking over production of even the high tech stuff.
Fuel can also be created from lunar resources and launched into orbit more cheaply than the same stuff launched from Earth.

In other words, the Moon is a potential profit center. It just needs the necessary investment to get it going.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 6:55 am

It’s main value, I would suspect, is as a stepping-off point to other planets, and propaganda of course.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 7:51 am

Hmmmm . . . let’s see:

Do I really want to make the effort to
1) send humans/robots/components and subassemblies and other material objects basically out of Earth’s gravity well,
2) then into the Moon’s gravity well (with the expenditure of a lot of addition energy to effect a soft landing on its surface),
3) then manufacture/assemble some large amount of items on the Moon’s surface in an external vacuum environment that is relatively poor in usable minerals, life support necessities (oxygen, water, food) and energy sources (only sunlight),
4) employ a large population of humans (perhaps supplemented with robots having capabilities far beyond the best demonstrated on Earth to date) on the Moon’s surface to effect such additional manufacturing and assembly,
5) then launch such large subassemblies/spacecraft out of the Moon’s gravity well (with the expenditure of a large amount of additional energy to achieve escape velocity)?

Doesn’t make any sense to me . . . but I fully appreciate NASA’s reasons for arguing the opposite, as well as to why the gullible public desires to buy into such propaganda.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 8:24 am

As I pointed out the last time you made this error, why on earth would Earth based astronauts land on the moon in order to rendezvous with a spacecraft already in lunar orbit.

Beyond that, you are ignoring the fact that those vehicles destined for deep space have to be launched from somewhere.
They can be launched from the Earth, at tremendous cost, or they can be launched from the moon at a tiny fraction of the cost.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 9:48 am

Perhaps my “error” would be in asking what possible reason would there be for any spacecraft to be put into lunar orbit in the first place, assuming it was not built/assembled/fueled in part using lunar resources.

It takes propellant mass (energy and directed exhaust momentum to develop rocket thrust) to travel into and out of a gravity well, and in this process neither energy or momentum is being “recycled”.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 5:42 pm

If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that the proposed spacecraft was built/assembled/fueled using lunar resources.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2022 10:23 am

“They can be launched from the Earth, at tremendous cost, or they can be launched from the moon at a tiny fraction of the cost.”

A ridiculous statement on its face.

How many of the items comprising a “vehicle destined for deep space” and its associated launch vehicle will first have to be launched from Earth and either soft-landed on the lunar surface or placed into lunar orbit.

Your statement about the “tremendous cost” of launching from Earth compared to the “tiny fraction of the cost” of launching from the Moon certainly appears to rule out anything coming initially from Earth!

So either on the Moon’s surface or in some lunar orbit there will need to be the infrastructure necessary to produce, for the “vehicle destined for deep space” and its associated launch vehicle,:
— the computers (including microchips, circuit boards and electrical wiring) needed for command and control
— the computers (including microchips, circuit boards, electrical wiring and sensors) needed for in-flight guidance and navigation
— the computers/equipment (including microchips, circuit boards, electrical wiring, and antennas) needed for communications
— all the life-support equipment and resources needed for accommodating any humans on said deep space vehicle
— the solar cell (PV) arrays, fuel cells, batteries and other components need for the electrical power system(s)
— the propellant mass and all propulsion hardware necessary for the planned mission, with highly complex manufacturing technology needed to produce high efficiency rocket engines
— all the necessary manufacturing technology to manufacture and assembly a nuclear power plant, and to refine usable nuclear fuel from lunar resources, assuming one wants to entertain using nuclear propulsion for either the “launcher” or the “deep space vehicle”
— the structure to mount all of the above.

I could go on and on, but need I?

The idea of building a space vehicle and its propulsive stage without using items launched from Earth’s surface is utterly preposterous.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Richard Page
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 12:43 pm

The moon itself might not be such a source of raw materials for building spacecraft but if they are present in the asteroid belt then the moon might be a more convenient assembly point than the Earth.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard Page
July 7, 2022 2:02 pm

The Earth currently has ALL of the elements needed to build spacecraft and to provide necessary microcomponents, components and subassemblies necessary for them to function (with or without human occupancy) in space.

Without doubt, the surface of the Earth is the most convenient assembly point right now for anything headed into space.

In another 100 years or so, it might develop that near-Earth orbit turns out to be more convenient for incrementally assembling massive, physically large and potential “fragile” spacecraft, but that is far from true now.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 7, 2022 5:44 pm

I’m trying to decide if you just skim posts looking for things to be disagreeable about, I have stated over and over again that the craft would be built from materials mined on the moon.
I also stated several times that at first, the high tech components would have to come from the earth, but over time these could be built on the moon as well.

Frank S.
July 6, 2022 12:00 pm

Its purely coincidence that Xi wants to change the name “Moon” to “Mine”.

Richard Page
Reply to  Frank S.
July 7, 2022 7:00 am

Well they can’t keep calling it Yué – think how confusing it would be to westerners!

ResourceGuy
July 6, 2022 12:02 pm

He should know. NASA was easy pickings by the Chinese for intel theft.

ResourceGuy
July 6, 2022 12:04 pm

The Chinese should now respond with construction of a coal fired power plant on the moon.

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 6, 2022 12:17 pm

Ah yes , but Elon Musk plans on taking over Mars so he can be Emperor of the Solar System. People who settle there will be known as Muskians. Who holds the high ground now?

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 6, 2022 2:09 pm

Only if there are enough tax credits to power them all there.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 6, 2022 9:10 pm

Musk = Ming the Merciless
😁

ResourceGuy
July 6, 2022 12:09 pm

Great, now we will focus on moon defense while Taiwan is invaded, and Russia finishes off eastern Europe.

Olen
July 6, 2022 12:14 pm

Yes the anti movement cherishes everything except advancement but don’t mind failure and poverty. Why should politicians be afraid of these mindless problems when it is the general population they should be after. Maybe it’s not fear but money that motivates them.

Peter Fraser
July 6, 2022 1:10 pm

With so many new kids on the block, NASA with its interminable delays in another moon landing is turning into a grumpy old curmudgeon.

TBeholder
Reply to  Peter Fraser
July 7, 2022 9:51 am

NASA turned into a parody long ago.
That’s the sort of problems mighty JPL tackles these days:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160215020246/www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/2/11/celebrating-women-in-science (does not show, but “View larger image” works).
https://web.archive.org/web/20180923210629/mars.nasa.gov/resources/7705/women-in-science/
Have fun comparing photo. Or link them whenever someone tries to pull good old appeal to authority with this Starbucks crew. Looks like a serious and trustworthy organization, doesn’t it…

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
July 6, 2022 1:20 pm

So, in other words, China wants to take over the moon.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
July 7, 2022 3:55 am

I think the Chicoms want to own the entire Universe. I believe some of them have expressed this sentiment. It’s an “ego” thing with them. They think they should own everything including all the rest of us.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 7, 2022 8:25 am

I believe they still call themselves “The Middle Kingdom”.

dk_
July 6, 2022 2:31 pm

Grand Fenwick got there first!
Remember the bobolinks.

n.n
July 6, 2022 11:23 pm

In the immortal words of social progressives: just do it… be like Maos, like Xi, Stalin, perchance Hitler, like Sanger, and don’t spare the babies.

MarkMcD
July 7, 2022 12:25 am

Sorry, so for 50 YEARS, US did nothing much about the Moon and putting humans there. Now NASA is dog-in-the-manger about it because their enemy (and enemy of the world) is making moves?

Grow a pair and get some people up there NOW!

Of course, you will need to deal with the CCP paid whores who are implementing CCP desires across the US.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkMcD
Coach Springer
July 7, 2022 5:47 am

Well, that settles it then.

TBeholder
July 7, 2022 9:15 am

The purpose of China’s space program, Nelson said, “is a military space program,” and its accomplishments are built on technology theft.

Probably.
As opposed to… the one “provided by good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun”? Which above and beyond the whole point of Space Race had some inconsistencies so curious that later the shills had to run entire «nevar was on da Moon» circus just to drown some questions in noise and “googlewash” over? Pot, kettle and lack of intact mirrors.

%d bloggers like this: