China's Space Program Thread II

[NoetherSpudCharge]

I think that going by SpaceX's history of reusable launches where it took almost a year after the first recovery to the first relaunch and even longer to master it and establish a high cadence of relaunches that even if this upcoming block of reusable launches succeeds at recovery it will be very difficult to reach 2028 targets. Maybe even if this upcoming block succeeds we could see a one year delay, failure might mean at least a two year delay.

Three Points;

A. The SpaceX time-line for initial reuse may no longer be instructive due to its unique circumstance (first ever). New Glenn took exactly 6 months from first recovery (Nov '25) to first reuse (Apr '26) and Blue Origin had planned for the next launch to occur less than two months after that (precluded of course by that spectacular "unplanned disassembly"). The Chinese National teams, including its commercial spin-off arms, also have been moving faster on the implementation of new launchers. For example, the first CZ-12 debuted at the end of November 2024, this was followed quickly by 3 launches in 2025 plus the debut of CZ-12A in Dec 2025; this is lightening fast compared to the pre-2020 period when a second launch for a new rocket would not occur for at least a year (or years). So I wouldn't necessarily be so resigned to the prospect that the new reusable launchers would take years to increase launch cadence.

B. Even without reuse, the new classes of Chinese reusable launchers can be used in expeandable mode; and when they are combined with the ongoing launch cadence increases by China's existing launchers for megaconstllations, such as CZ-6A, CZ-8, CZ-8A, CZ-12, the launch rate for internet satellites can increase significantly (although not to as great an extent as is possible after the implementation of high cadence reusable vehicles).

C. The upcoming two 1st-stage recovery attempts (by the ZQ-3 and CZ-10B) are more likely than not to be successful. The first ZQ-3 launch last December successfully demonstrated the rocket's aerodynamic properties during the recovery phase, its attitude-control systems during the supersonic glide phase, and its recovery guidance algorithms; although the engine compartment exploded at the moment of the final deceleration ignition, the 1st-stage nevertheless almost hit its landing pad dead on. So if the anomaly during the 1st launch that resulted in the explosion (likely insufficient thermal protection for the engine compartment) has been remedied, then the probability for a successful recovery is quite high. As for the CZ-10B 1st-stage recovery attempt, almost the entire process was successfully demonstrated during this February's launch of the CZ-10 test stage duirng the Mengzhou Max-Q test, including a successful final deceleration burn with a controlled water landing (they skipped the wire-catch step) and subsequent stage recovery; the only things preventing this launch from being billed as the first successful Chinese rocket recovery attempt are that it wasn't an orbital launch and the fact that the preferred recovery mechanism was not used in this case. In short, I expect good news on the stage-recovery front in the next few weeks and would be disappointed if it does not occur. Note that LandSpace has publicly stated that it intends to demonstrate stage reuse later this year if its upcoming recovery attempt is successful.

Ultimately, it's neither here nor there to be either optimistic or pessimistic on the propsects for high candence Chinese launches later this decade; it all depends on execution by the relevant organizations. We outsiders can only observe. We can argue amongst ourselves if one is overly optimistic or pessimistic, but it's all just for laughs (BTW, I'm aware of how cringy it can be to be overly optimistic and placing too much trust in any organization or individual after observing quite a bit of such behavior by SpaceX fans, so I'll endeavour to refrain from doing so...in the future).

 

[ENTED64]

Three Points;

A. The SpaceX time-line for initial reuse may no longer be instructive due to its unique circumstance (first ever). New Glenn took exactly 6 months from first recovery (Nov '25) to first reuse (Apr '26) and Blue Origin had planned for the next launch to occur less than two months after that (precluded of course by that spectacular "unplanned disassembly"). The Chinese National teams, including its commercial spin-off arms, also have been moving faster on the implementation of new launchers. For example, the first CZ-12 debuted at the end of November 2024, this was followed quickly by 3 launches in 2025 plus the debut of CZ-12A in Dec 2025; this is lightening fast compared to the pre-2020 period when a second launch for a new rocket would not occur for at least a year (or years). So I wouldn't necessarily be so resigned to the prospect that the new reusable launchers would take years to increase launch cadence.

B. Even without reuse, the new classes of Chinese reusable launchers can be used in expeandable mode; and when they are combined with the ongoing launch cadence increases by China's existing launchers for megaconstllations, such as CZ-6A, CZ-8, CZ-8A, CZ-12, the launch rate for internet satellites can increase significantly (although not to as great an extent as is possible after the implementation of high cadence reusable vehicles).

C. The upcoming two 1st-stage recovery attempts (by the ZQ-3 and CZ-10B) are more likely than not to be successful. The first ZQ-3 launch last December successfully demonstrated the rocket's aerodynamic properties during the recovery phase, its attitude-control systems during the supersonic glide phase, and its recovery guidance algorithms; although the engine compartment exploded at the moment of the final deceleration ignition, the 1st-stage nevertheless almost hit its landing pad dead on. So if the anomaly during the 1st launch that resulted in the explosion (likely insufficient thermal protection for the engine compartment) has been remedied, then the probability for a successful recovery is quite high. As for the CZ-10B 1st-stage recovery attempt, almost the entire process was successfully demonstrated during this February's launch of the CZ-10 test stage duirng the Mengzhou Max-Q test, including a successful final deceleration burn with a controlled water landing (they skipped the wire-catch step) and subsequent stage recovery; the only things preventing this launch from being billed as the first successful Chinese rocket recovery attempt are that it wasn't an orbital launch and the fact that the preferred recovery mechanism was not used in this case. In short, I expect good news on the stage-recovery front in the next few weeks and would be disappointed if it does not occur. Note that LandSpace has publicly stated that it intends to demonstrate stage reuse later this year if its upcoming recovery attempt is successful.

Ultimately, it's neither here nor there to be either optimistic or pessimistic on the propsects for high candence Chinese launches later this decade; it all depends on execution by the relevant organizations. We outsiders can only observe. We can argue amongst ourselves if one is overly optimistic or pessimistic, but it's all just for laughs (BTW, I'm aware of how cringy it can be to be overly optimistic and placing too much trust in any organization or individual after observing quite a bit of such behavior by SpaceX fans, so I'll endeavour to refrain from doing so...in the future).

I agree that the odds of a successful landing in the next few months are pretty good. My main objection is that even if we assume this I'm skeptical that the 2028 plans can be met.

First off, if the reusable landings aren't successful then it seems plain that the 2028 targets are not going to happen. I find it very unlikely that CZ-6A, CZ-8, etc. can be scaled enough when Guowang is targeting 3600 new satellites and averages like 9 satellites a launch, ramping up production to 400 expendable launches just for Guowang alone in 2 years time seems absurd to me. Maybe they can find a way to fit more satellites or such but this illustrates the magnitude of the gap, it's not really something that can be bridged by a 10 or 20% improvement.

As for if they succeed, I agree that in theory they could be fairly fast and try to have a relaunch in 6 months or something and not a year, but this is not guaranteed, there have been a lot of announcements that didn't actually happen. However, even if they do that, I don't really see them advancing so quickly they're doing multiple launches a week by 2028 which is what it would take. That's why I feel like some delay is probably baked in at this point. As per my previous post in 2025, unlike some other sectors the space launch sector has had a track record of missing self-imposed targets and experiencing significant delays. I feel like the 2028 targets were made before those delays became apparent and even if things develop smoothly from here on out, this delay is more just the inevitable consequence of the previous progress taking longer than expected.