China’s push to master reusable rockets has hit another very public snag, and the timing could hardly be worse for Beijing’s ambitions to compete head‑to‑head with the United States in commercial launch. Two failed recovery attempts in the span of a few weeks have undercut the narrative of relentless progress and highlighted just how far ahead American players, especially SpaceX, now are in turning reusability into a routine, money‑saving reality.
I see these setbacks not as isolated mishaps but as a revealing stress test of China’s wider space strategy. The country is launching more than ever and racing to field new heavy‑lift vehicles, yet the hardest part of the reusable revolution, precision recovery and rapid turnaround, is proving stubbornly elusive. That gap matters, because whoever dominates low‑cost, reusable launch will shape the economics and geopolitics of space for the next generation.
Two failed landings in one month
The most striking signal that China’s reusable rocket program is struggling came in the form of two failed recovery attempts within a single month. First, the country’s inaugural reusable rocket, Zhuque‑3, completed its maiden flight but lost its first stage during the planned recovery, then a separate effort to recover the booster of the new Long March 12A also fell short, leaving engineers with data but no intact hardware to inspect on the pad. When a program that is still in its demonstration phase suffers back‑to‑back recovery failures, it suggests that the learning curve on guidance, control, and landing systems remains steep.
Officials and company representatives have stressed that both the private and state sectors are pushing hard to close this gap, yet even sympathetic assessments concede that efforts from both sectors have so far been unsuccessful at achieving a clean, controlled recovery. The same reporting underscores that these stumbles leave China roughly 10 years behind the United States in reusable launch technology, a lag that is especially glaring when set against the routine landings now performed by Falcon 9 boosters on both land and sea.
Zhuque‑3: a fiery “partial success”
Zhuque‑3 has become the symbol of both China’s progress and its frustrations in reusability. On its debut flight, the methane‑fueled rocket reached orbit as planned, a major technical milestone for private launch company LandSpace and a clear sign that Chinese firms can design and build advanced engines and stages. The mission’s second act, however, went badly wrong when the lower stage appeared to catch fire before crashing near the recovery zone, turning what was meant to be a triumphant landing into a cautionary tale about the difficulty of mastering propulsive descent.
LandSpace’s Designer has said the cause of the anomaly is under investigation, but outside observers have already framed the outcome as a “partial success” that still challenges the American lead. One analysis described how Zhuque 3’s Partial Success Challenges the existing Reusable Lead of U.S. rockets, noting that Elon Musk Also Eyes It as a potential Competitor in the longer term. That kind of attention from the founder of SpaceX is a backhanded compliment, but it does not change the basic fact that China still has not demonstrated a fully successful, repeatable first‑stage recovery.
Long March 12A and the state sector’s stumble
If Zhuque‑3 represents the cutting edge of China’s private launch scene, the Long March 12A is the state’s answer to SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9. The second major reusable setback this month came when China’s second attempt to test a reusable rocket failed after the booster of the Long March 12A was not recovered as planned. Engineers did manage to collect engineering data, which is crucial for refining models and software, but the absence of a successful landing again underscored how far the state‑run program still has to go.
State media and officials have framed the Long March 12A test as a learning exercise rather than a full‑fledged operational mission, and that is fair as far as it goes. Yet when the flagship government launcher designed for reusability cannot yet stick a landing, it reinforces the impression that the private sector is not the only part of China’s space ecosystem grappling with the hardest parts of this technology. The fact that these two failures arrived so close together, one from a commercial player and one from the national champion, makes it harder to dismiss them as flukes rather than symptoms of a systemic challenge.
Why reusability is the real battleground
Reusability is not a vanity metric, it is the core lever that determines who can put hardware into orbit at a price that reshapes the market. The basic logic is simple: if you can recover and refly the most expensive parts of a rocket, you spread development and manufacturing costs over many missions instead of one, which drives down the cost per kilogram to orbit. That is why Reusability is described as crucial to lowering the costs of rocket launches and making it cheaper to send satellites into space, and why every serious launch provider now treats it as a strategic imperative rather than a nice‑to‑have feature.
In the United States, SpaceX has already demonstrated how transformative this model can be, flying individual Falcon 9 boosters more than a dozen times and using that reliability to win contracts from commercial satellite operators and government agencies alike. China’s inability so far to land and refly its own boosters at scale means its launch providers are stuck with higher marginal costs and less operational flexibility, even as they try to compete for the same global customers. Until Chinese rockets can match the cadence and cost profile of their American counterparts, the gap in reusability will translate directly into a gap in market share and influence.
Record launch numbers, but a quality gap
It would be a mistake to interpret these recovery failures as evidence that China’s space program is stagnating. On the contrary, the country has already smashed its previous record for launches in a calendar year, which was 68, and is now amassing more total missions than any other nation. That surge reflects a broad expansion in everything from crewed flights to the Tiangong space station to a growing constellation of Earth‑observation and communications satellites, as well as a steady stream of commercial payloads.
The problem, from a competitive standpoint, is that raw launch counts do not automatically translate into technological parity. Many of these missions still rely on expendable Long March variants that discard their boosters into the ocean or remote land areas, a model that looks increasingly dated next to rockets that land on droneships and are turned around in weeks. China’s record‑breaking launch tempo shows that its industrial base is robust and its ambitions are serious, but the absence of successful reusability means each of those flights is more expensive and less flexible than it could be, which in turn widens the qualitative gap with the United States even as the quantitative metrics look impressive.
Learning from complex test campaigns
One reason I am cautious about writing off China’s reusable ambitions is that the country has already shown it can execute highly complex test campaigns when it prioritizes them. A recent statement from the China Manned Space Agency described how a major test “involved multiple operational conditions, a lengthy testing period, and high technical complexity,” language that could just as easily apply to a reusable booster landing as to a space station or crewed mission exercise. The same statement, cited in a broader review of space activity, came from the Manned Space Agency (CMS), underscoring that Chinese engineers are no strangers to intricate, high‑risk operations.
The challenge with reusable rockets is that the margin for error is even smaller, and the feedback loop between test and iteration must be much faster. SpaceX’s success was built on a willingness to accept spectacular failures early on, learn from them, and fly again quickly, a culture that is harder to replicate in a system where both state and private actors are under intense political and public scrutiny. China’s engineers clearly have the technical chops, but whether they will be given the freedom to fail repeatedly in pursuit of a breakthrough remains an open question, especially now that two high‑profile attempts have already ended in flames.
Private startups versus state giants
The split between private companies like LandSpace and state‑backed giants such as the Long March family adds another layer of complexity to China’s reusable rocket story. LandSpace, with fewer than 2,000 staff, is trying to move fast and break things in a way that mirrors early SpaceX, betting that a nimble team can out‑innovate larger incumbents. The state sector, by contrast, is tasked with delivering reliable national capability, which makes it more cautious and less inclined to accept the kind of rapid‑fire failures that often precede real breakthroughs in frontier technologies.
That tension is visible in how each side has framed recent setbacks. LandSpace has emphasized the orbital success of Zhuque‑3 and the value of the data gathered from its failed landing, while officials around the Long March 12A have highlighted the engineering insights gleaned from a booster that did not make it back intact. Both narratives are technically accurate, but they also reveal a shared reluctance to fully own the scale of the challenge. Until either the private startups or the state giants can demonstrate a booster that lands, is refurbished, and flies again, the rhetoric about catching up with SpaceX will remain aspirational rather than operational.
Global perception and the widening U.S. lead
Outside China, the optics of two failed recovery attempts in quick succession have reinforced a perception that the United States, and specifically SpaceX, is pulling further ahead in the reusable race. American boosters now land so routinely that a failed recovery is newsworthy precisely because it is rare, while Chinese attempts are still framed as experimental and high risk. That asymmetry shapes how satellite operators, investors, and policymakers view the relative reliability and cost‑effectiveness of each country’s launch offerings, and it feeds into a broader narrative of U.S. technological leadership.
At the same time, analysts who follow China’s space program closely caution against complacency in Washington. One detailed review of recent missions noted that There was an “anomaly” that produced a fireball at the recovery zone instead of a spent first stage, but also stressed that China’s reusable rocket program is accelerating fast despite such setbacks. That dual reality, rapid progress paired with visible failures, is exactly how disruptive technologies usually mature. The United States may enjoy a comfortable lead today, but if Beijing sustains its investment and tolerates the bruises that come with learning, the gap could narrow more quickly than current headlines suggest.
What the next phase will decide
Looking ahead, the next few years of China’s reusable rocket efforts will determine whether the current setbacks are remembered as growing pains or as the start of a more enduring divergence from U.S. capabilities. Success will require not just technical fixes to engines, guidance systems, and landing legs, but also institutional changes that allow both private and state actors to iterate rapidly without being derailed by each failure. It will also demand continued investment in supporting infrastructure, from landing pads and tracking networks to refurbishment facilities that can turn a scorched booster into a flight‑ready asset in weeks rather than months.
For now, the balance of evidence suggests that the United States retains a clear and widening edge in reusable launch, while China compensates with sheer volume and a broad portfolio of space activities. The country’s overall space profile, from its crewed station to its lunar ambitions, remains formidable, and its leadership is unlikely to accept a permanent second‑tier status in such a strategically important domain. As I weigh the latest failures against the scale of China’s ambitions and resources, I see a race that is far from over, but one in which the U.S. lead has been reinforced, at least for the moment, by the fiery descent of boosters that were meant to land softly. In that context, the stakes of every upcoming test flight, whether by Zhuque‑3, Long March 12A, or their successors, will extend well beyond the immediate mission to the broader contest over who sets the rules and reaps the rewards of the new space economy.
Why the gap matters beyond rockets
The consequences of China’s lag in reusability ripple far beyond the launch pad. Lower launch costs enable denser satellite constellations for broadband, more frequent Earth‑observation passes for climate and security monitoring, and faster deployment of experimental payloads that drive innovation in everything from materials science to pharmaceuticals. The United States, with its mature reusable fleet, can already offer customers more flexible schedules and lower prices, which in turn attract more business and more data, reinforcing a virtuous cycle of capability and revenue that is hard for latecomers to disrupt.
China’s leadership understands this dynamic, which is why the country’s broader space strategy, visible in everything from its national plans to the prominence of China’s space achievements in official propaganda, places such emphasis on catching up in high‑impact technologies. The recent failures in reusable rocket recovery are therefore more than technical setbacks; they are political and economic warning lights that the current trajectory may not be enough to close the gap with the United States. Whether Beijing responds with greater openness to private innovation, more aggressive funding, or a recalibration of expectations will shape not only the future of its launch sector but also its broader role in the emerging space economy.
More from MorningOverview