Probably not. Apollo cost $25B ($150B) in today's money.
There is a list of spin off technology and do keep in mind that this is the positive spin version of things. Does it look like it generated $150B of wealth? And, how many of these would have eventually been invented organically, wo NASA forcing?
The problem is that, once a big state company gets underway, there is enormous political pressure to keep money and favors flowing its way. Regardless of whether or not it is really innovative. China may have its commercial successes, but they also have massive $ sinkholes in the SOE (State Owned Enterprises). Plus, I rather doubt that Alibaba for example, counts as a state venture.
To take the flip side of whatever "success" NASA/Apollo came up with, Europe had a massive multi billion $ state program in the 90s to develop HDTV. The rationale was just as it always is: maintain innovation, develop technological leadership, beat the Japanese. The technology was analog however and this all went down the drain.
Japan in the 90s had the 5th generation computer project. Everybody was quaking in their boots. Ever heard of it?
You want to see how innovative NASA can be? Just watch how much the Moon/Mars spaceship program is costing per shot. Or what about that other big white elephant, the reusable, cheap, safe Space Shuttle?
This is not to say that the state can't assist in R&D. Off the top of my head:
Sponsor things that are insufficiently funded through markets. Vaccines and antibiotic development comes to mind.
University grants and assistance in university commercialization.
Competitive prizes, like the DARPA challenges, one of which kickstarted autonomous cars and the X Prizes.
Targeted engineering research, like what started out the Internet's TCPIP protocol.
Support pure research, before there is any commercial incentive.
Worthy and cheaper NASA programs like Hubble, Curiosity, ion drives, looking at Europa and kin for life.
Education, education, education. Improve it.
There is plenty a smart government can do to stimulate innovation, but little of it comes from granting monopolies and special favors to a select group of government-cozy companies. What works is mostly smaller injections of cash into promising early domains, along with ruthlessness to move on to greener pastures when a given project does not work out.
Chinese companies have the benefit of a truly massive market to grow into, along with some really clever engineers and a very competitive manufacturing industry. They've also shamelessly copied, and been allowed to copy, Western tech. If that sounds like a certain US politician, well, you know what they say about broken clocks.
Mistaking the success of the best, ignoring the failures of the rest and thinking that state sponsorship of big companies is the answer is more likely to bring us back to the excesses and failures of mid 90s European industrial projects, or to generalize the pork barrel politics of something like the F35 than it is to generate the next Apple or Tesla.
As far as what most of the article goes on about, not using Huawei for most of the coming 5G cell networks? Yes, I agree that China has, to date, not demonstrated the benign intentions and goodwill that justifies putting critical Western data infrastructure at the tender mercies of one of its more state-friendly companies.
