Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: "China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020."

But if you read the article, it's clear that "China" has no such "aims." The only person with such "aims" is the "deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program." He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:

But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country's overall development.

If Mike Griffin's deputy said, "I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter," would Mark then agree with the headline "US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020"? Would he say that there are "indications" that this is a US goal?

Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.

[Monday morning update]

Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:

Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.

First of all, I didn't say "land a man on Jupiter." But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark's strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.

Rand: 'If Mike Griffin's deputy said, "I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter," would Mark then agree with the headline "US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020"?'

For starters, there's a huge difference between 'to Jupiter' and 'on Jupiter'!

Is there any chance we can send George Bush and Mark Whittington to Jupiter?

Actually Rand, I'd be careful claiming that these are goals of isolated individuals. My take is that China exercises great control over the media and over government employees talking to the media. So it is somewhat suspicious to see multiple people associated with the space program talking to the media in such a way.

This may indeed be the start of an official lunar program. However, this doesn't strike me as evidence of a more rapid pace in their space program.

Karl, even the official quoted doesn't claim that they are plans. He in fact notes that they are currently not.

That is true, he isn't saying that. Doesn't mean he's telling the truth though. There's plenty of historical examples of organizations that made plans, but refused to admit that they made such plans. It's definitely not what I'd call firm evidence that China is heading to the Moon on any sort of schedule.

It is interesting to glance through headlines on the subject. Eg, "China Plans Manned Moon Mission, Space Station Within 15 Years", "China aims to put astronauts on moon in 2017", "Manned moon mission expected in 10 to 15 years", or "Space program sets 15-year moon goal". Pretty big words given it's just a few officials saying that it'd be nice to do if they're given the funding.

Of course it doesn't mean that he's telling the truth. Perhaps the truth is that there are plans to have a colony on Mars in ten years, and this is all smokescreen to divert us from that.

The point is that if one is going to point to something as evidence for a proposition, then it should actually be evidence for the proposition. When one claims that counterevidence is evidence for one's proposition, one wanders off into paranoid conspiracy fantasies, in which everything is evidence for it.

I see that Rand is in full blown Clinton mode and is parsing his own words again in order to wiggle out of the embaressment he has made for himself. The fact of the matter is that his analogy is silly, given the technical challengers of sending people to the Moon and the far greater (impossible) technical challenges of sending people to Jupiter (which, by the way, sort of implies landing on it IMHO, a neat trick for a gas giant.)

Finally, I swear I do not make posts about China and it's possible space plans with the sole intent of making Rand leap the length of his chain. His behavior may make it seem that way, but it is nevertheless not true.

I think, by the way, Karl makes an excellent point. Even NASA officials do not spout off too often about future possibilities unless they are looked upon with favor by people above their pay grade. I think we can conclude that at the very least a person to the Moon program in the next decade is under active consideration in Beijing.

Fine, Mark, continue to ignore the point, and logic. It's just what I've come to expect from you.

I think we can conclude that at the very least a person to the Moon program in the next decade is under active consideration in Beijing.

Obviously that's the case. Many things that will never happen are always "under active consideration." But as the article (and official) points out, there's a huge leap between active consideration and definite, funded plans.

Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:

Finally, I swear I do not make posts about China and it's possible space plans with the sole intent of making Rand leap the length of his chain.

What is it with you two; bad business relationship? Mom liked him (point) best? It's like watching two cats circle the room hissing and spitting ...

What is it with you two; bad business relationship?

No, I just get a little tired of him making things up about what I write, and believe, and I find his continual beating of the Chinese space-race drum amusing. Of course, probably the only time that anyone even notices it is when I link to him...

You two should both put on bikinis, bleached blond wigs, and thick garish makeup then settle this in a wrestling ring.

"You two should both put on bikinis, bleached blond wigs, and thick garish makeup then settle this in a wrestling ring."

Make them do it in a big pit of Jello!

Pay-per-view!

Joe and Cecil, I can't speak for Rand, but in my own case that is not a sight for small children or the more sensitive (g).

Rand, I don't have to make up anything. You really need to take some responsibility, stand by the positions you take, and not try to wiggle out by parsing words or making personal attacks when you make ridiculous statements. It's fine if you disagree with my analysis of China's space goals, but behaving affronted by it is not very edifying.

Mark, I'm not in any way "affronted" by your views of China's space goals--as I said, I'm primarily amused by them. What I'm affronted by is your chronic mischaracterization of my views on that subject (and many others), something that you seem to find yourself unable, or unwilling to ever defend.

I post what I write, I post your absurd caricature of it, for all to see, and you simply blithely ignore it, instead changing subjects, or moving on to some other fantasy about what I write and believe. That's what "affronts" me (as it would any other reasonable person),

"I post what I write, I post your absurd caricature of it, for all to see, and you simply blithely ignore it"

Yes, Rand, I know you keep saying that, but from where I sit it seems to me that the reality is that you make statements and take positions and when people call you on them, you use the "that's not what I said!" gambit as a debating tactic. The latest is your attempt to say that going "to" Jupiter can never mean landing "on" Jupiter, even though you used both words in the frankly absurd analogy that you made. (And, of course, you will now as surely as the sun rises in the east, deny having done that as well.)

Yes, Rand, I know you keep saying that, but from where I sit it seems to me that the reality is that you make statements and take positions and when people call you on them, you use the "that's not what I said!" gambit as a debating tactic.

Yes, and it's a debating tactic that's effective because it has the ultimate virtue--it's true, because it really is not what I said (and with you, it's rarely what I said--instead being some bizarro/Whittington-world version of what I said). And when you're called on it, you can never back up your absurd accusations, simply moving on to the next subject (just like now).

The latest is your attempt to say that going "to" Jupiter can never mean landing "on" Jupiter, even though you used both words in the frankly absurd analogy that you made.

And so you continue to demonstrate your ongoing cluelessness about my point, about which the actual technical feasibility is irrelevant (though, again, the truth is that I never said "on Jupiter" or "landing a man (or anything else) on Jupiter").

Mark, I should note that your statement that "It's fine if you disagree with my analysis of China's space goals, but behaving affronted by it is not very edifying" is a perfect example of this kind of tripe, since nowhere have I said, implied, or indicated that I'm affronted by this. Yet I'm confident that you will persist in delusionally believing it, in the face of any protestations, or reality.