After 30 years of development of reusable rockets, why are only China and the United States in the race?

In October 2025, the construction of an offshore recovery system for reusable rockets officially commenced at the Hainan Commercial Space Launch Site. It is expected to be delivered by the end of 2026. This system will be equipped with capabilities such as dynamic positioning, remote control, and unmanned operation, providing a public service platform for the offshore recovery of Chinese commercial rockets.

Meanwhile, LandSpace's Zhuque-3 carrier rocket has successfully completed the first phase of its maiden flight mission. Next, it will challenge rocket recovery technology and is expected to make its maiden flight within 2025. With the advancement of new-generation reusable rockets like Zhuque-3, China is gradually narrowing the gap with global leaders in reusable launch vehicle technology and moving towards independent and sustainable space capabilities.

For a long time, the technology of reusable rockets - enabling a rocket weighing hundreds of tons to return from the edge of space and land - has puzzled the space industry for decades.

Rocket recovery is not a new concept. In 1993, McDonnell Douglas' DC-X experimental rocket completed the world's first vertical takeoff and landing demonstration. Although it only flew 45 meters high and lasted for 59 seconds, it proved that "making a rocket fly back" was technically feasible.

It took nearly 30 years for humanity to progress from concept verification to engineering implementation. Today, China and the United States are each promoting the engineering application of recovery technology. For example, SpaceX in the United States has established a relatively mature recovery and reuse system, and the Chinese space industry is also accelerating technology verification and iteration. Looking globally, there are only two "substantial players" in this field: China and the United States. Other traditional space powers are either just starting out or still observing in the field of reusable rockets.

Why has a revolutionary technology that is considered capable of significantly reducing launch costs not been fully popularized after 30 years? Where exactly are the technical thresholds for the recovery and reuse of hundred - meter - class rockets?

DC-X, a NASA rocket that predated SpaceX by 20 years

01 The Abandoned Pioneer: The Fate Turn of DC-X

McDonnell Douglas' DC-X project originally had a bright future. From 1993 to 1996, this cone - shaped experimental rocket completed 12 successful flight tests, reaching a maximum altitude of 3140 meters, demonstrating great technical potential. NASA even took over the project and upgraded it to DC - XA for further testing.

However, in July 1996, the situation took a sharp turn for the worse. During the fourth test flight, the DC - XA successfully completed all flight maneuvers, but during landing, one of the four landing struts failed to deploy, causing the rocket to topple over on the ground. The propellant leakage triggered a fire, and the entire rocket body was burned.

The accident itself was not an insurmountable technical obstacle, but it became the last straw that broke the camel's back for the project.

At that time, NASA was fully committed to the Space Shuttle program and the construction of the International Space Station, and its budget was stretched thin. More importantly, the launch market in the 1990s was not large enough, with only dozens of launches globally each year. "Saving money" was not the most urgent need. Additionally, the material technology, flight control systems, and cost control at that time were far from mature. Facing the high subsequent R & D costs and uncertain commercial prospects, NASA chose to abandon the project.

This abandonment lasted for 20 years. It wasn't until the era of commercial spaceflight arrived that rocket recovery returned to people's view.

02 Elon Musk's SpaceX

In 2001, when Elon Musk was planning the 'Mars Oasis' project, he twice went to Russia to try to buy decommissioned intercontinental ballistic missiles, but the high asking prices shocked him. At that moment, he realized that if rockets were built in the traditional way, the dream of reaching Mars would be impossible.

So, in 2002, with the $100 million he got from selling PayPal, he founded SpaceX, determined to make it possible for humanity to reach Mars by reducing launch costs and achieving rocket reuse.

SpaceX's rocket recovery journey was full of hardships. In 2013, the Falcon 9 made its first attempt at a "controlled splashdown." The rocket successfully decelerated but eventually disintegrated. In January 2015, during the first attempt at landing on an offshore platform, the rocket hit the barge and exploded. In April, another attempt was made, and the rocket toppled over on the platform. In June, the launch failed, and the rocket disintegrated in the air...

The turning point came in December 2015. On the evening of the 21st, after sending 11 satellites into orbit, the first - stage of the Falcon 9 successfully returned to the Cape Canaveral Landing Site, achieving the first land - based recovery of an orbital - class rocket. In just nine minutes, the course of space history was changed.

The real test of rocket recovery is reuse. On March 30, 2017, a "second - hand" Falcon 9 was successfully launched and recovered again, proving that rocket recovery is not just a technical demonstration but can form a commercial closed - loop. Since then, SpaceX has made recovery and reuse the norm - some rockets have flown more than 20 times, and the launch cost has dropped from the industry average of $60 million to about $15 million.

As rocket recovery technology matured, SpaceX began to set its sights on a more ambitious goal - human spaceflight. The reliability and low cost of the Falcon 9 gave NASA hope of returning to manned launches. After years of R & D and testing, the Crew Dragon project was born. It not only aims to send people into space but also to prove that commercial companies can take on this important task.

On May 30, 2020, a historic moment arrived. The Crew Dragon carried two NASA astronauts into space from the Kennedy Space Center. This was the first time since the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011 that the United States had sent astronauts into space using a domestic rocket. And after sending the manned spacecraft into orbit, the first - stage of the Falcon 9 that carried out this mission still landed steadily on the recovery platform in the Atlantic Ocean - the idea that a rocket used in a manned mission could be recovered was unimaginable before.

The first - stage numbered B1058 became a legend and has since carried out more than a dozen missions. With each recovery, refurbishment, and re - launch, the cost has been continuously reduced. SpaceX claims that they have reduced the launch cost to one - tenth of that of traditional rockets.

Behind this success is the explosive growth of the commercial space market - satellite internet, space tourism, and deep - space exploration. The annual launch demand has soared from dozens to hundreds. When "saving money" became a necessity, there was the strongest impetus for technological breakthroughs.

But Elon Musk's ambition goes far beyond this. In Boca Chica, Texas, an even more ambitious project is underway - Starship. This colossal 120 - meter - tall behemoth is designed to be fully reusable, just like a commercial airliner, only requiring refueling for each flight. If the Falcon 9 proved the feasibility of rocket recovery, the goal of Starship is to reduce the launch cost per unit of payload by another 100 times. Elon Musk hopes that it will truly open the era of large - scale space transportation.

03 The Global Reusable Rocket Camp

Although it has been nearly a decade since the first successful recovery of the Falcon 9 in 2015, there is still no second truly mature reusable rocket globally.

Looking globally, the field of reusable rockets shows a distinct three - level differentiation:

On one side is the United States, with SpaceX's Falcon 9 leading the way and having achieved commercial operation. Blue Origin's New Shepard has completed sub - orbital recovery, and New Glenn is about to make its maiden flight.

On the other side is China, where multiple companies are advancing simultaneously. The Long March rockets are conducting grid fin tests, and private enterprises such as LandSpace, iSpace, and Deep Blue Aerospace are all accelerating their progress. Some have completed kilometer - level vertical takeoff and landing tests. In particular, LandSpace's Zhuque - 3 has completed multiple technical tests to prove its reusable capabilities and is expected to make its maiden flight this year.

There is also a third - tier of other countries - Europe has just launched relevant R & D, while Russia, Japan, and India are basically still in the demonstration stage, with few technology verifications.

Behind this pattern lies not only a technological gap but also different judgments and investment determination regarding the future space economy.

04 The Roadmap of Reusable Rockets

There is not just one way to recover a rocket. Currently, there are six typical technical routes globally:

1. Vertical Takeoff and Vertical Landing (VTVL)

This is currently the most mainstream and mature method. The representative is SpaceX's Falcon 9, which uses engine reverse thrust to decelerate and achieve precise landing of the first - stage rocket on an offshore or land - based platform. China's LandSpace Zhuque - 3 and Tianbing Technology Tianlong - 3 also adopt similar technical routes. Its advantages are simple structure and high repeatability, but it requires extremely precise engine thrust adjustment and landing control.

2. Vertical Takeoff, Horizontal Landing / Horizontal Takeoff, Horizontal Landing (VTHL / HTHL)

This method relies on wing gliding to return. The representatives are the US Space Shuttle and the currently orbiting X - 37B spaceplane. They are sent into orbit by rockets or boosters and glide to land like airplanes when returning. The advantages are smooth landing and high reuse rate, but the overall system is large and the maintenance cost is high. Therefore, the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011.

3. Recovery of Boosters with Wings

This refers to boosters with deployable wing surfaces or engine compartments that can glide or fly back autonomously when returning. For example, Europe's Callisto recovery demonstrator, China's in - development recoverable space booster plan, and the historical Soviet "Buran" booster concept. This type of design combines the ideas of VTVL and the Space Shuttle, but the technical complexity is high, and it is still in the experimental stage.

4. Soft Landing via Parachute / Airbag

This is the earliest method with the lowest technical threshold. The early SpaceX Falcon 1 and Russia's in - development small - booster recovery experiments have both tried this method. Although the structure is simple, the control accuracy is low, the landing points are scattered, and seawater corrosion is severe, making it difficult to achieve multiple reuses. It has basically been phased out.

5. Mid - Air Recovery

The representative is Rocket Lab's small rocket, Electron. They once used a helicopter to hook a rocket with a parachute in mid - air for recovery. However, due to high operational risks, low success rates, and difficult post - recovery maintenance, Rocket Lab has announced that it will switch to a new scheme of "mid - stage reignition for deceleration + splashdown recovery on the sea surface" for its future Neutron rocket.

6. Tower Arm / Net Catch

This is the newest and most aesthetically engineered method. The Super Heavy booster of Starship has verified the technology of catching the rocket in mid - air with the "chopsticks" of the tower arm multiple times. Its advantage is that it does not require landing struts, saving weight and fuel, but it requires extremely high precision in ground control and coordination. The Chinese space industry has released an animated demonstration of recovery through a "grid - net catch" method, which seems like science fiction but is theoretically feasible.

Today, with the great success of the Falcon 9, there are more than 10 rockets globally that are challenging the verification or engineering development of Vertical Takeoff and Vertical Landing (VTVL) technology. Moreover, Chinese rocket companies account for more than half of them.

These rockets generally use liquid oxygen - methane or liquid oxygen - kerosene propellants and focus on reuse performance and landing accuracy. Although they start from different points, the core path is the same: achieving stable recovery through a highly reliable flight control system + adjustable - thrust engine + lightweight structure. Some models have carried out low - altitude vertical takeoff and landing tests to accumulate key data.

05 How Difficult Is Rocket Recovery?

Some people compare rocket recovery to "dropping a pen from a 100 - story building and making it land precisely in a pen holder on the ground." This metaphor is vivid, but the reality is far more complex.

For example, the Falcon 9 is a metal cylinder more than 40 meters tall and weighs more than 20 tons when empty. It falls from an altitude of 100 kilometers at several times the speed of sound. It can neither glide like an airplane nor rely on a parachute. The only deceleration tool it has is its own engine.

The technical challenges involved here lie in four "precisions":

Precise guidance: The rocket needs to calculate the return trajectory in real - time at hypersonic speeds. From the separation point to the landing point, it is calculating the optimal path every second. A slight deviation may cause it to deviate from the landing site by several kilometers.

Precise control: Using grid fins and reverse - thrust engines to adjust the attitude in the thin atmosphere is like using chopsticks to balance a 20 - story - tall pencil. The rocket has a high center of gravity and a large cross - section, making it extremely prone to instability and rolling.

Precise deceleration: There is only enough fuel for one chance. Decelerating too early will cause a crash, and decelerating too late will cause an impact. The ignition timing and thrust of the engine must be flawless, and it should finally "kiss" the ground at a speed of less than 2 meters per second.

Precise anti - interference: The wind speed at high altitudes can reach dozens of meters per second. The rocket needs to maintain balance in the strong wind like a ballet dancer. The sensors, actuators, and flight control algorithms must respond in milliseconds.

This is why after 30 years, only a few have mastered this technology. It is not a breakthrough in a single technology but a systematic revolution in materials, power, control, and algorithms.

In addition, achieving rocket recovery essentially means solving a contradiction: the rocket must be "powerful" enough to send dozens of tons of payload into space and "gentle" enough to land lightly. Therefore, coordinated breakthroughs in four key technologies are also required:

The "throttle art" of the engine: Traditional rocket engines are like racing engines, only focusing on full - power output. But recovery requires an "intelligent throttle": the thrust can be reduced from 100% to 40% or even lower, and it should also be able to restart in the air and be precisely adjusted. SpaceX's Merlin engine can throttle down to 40% of its thrust, and China's Tianque - 12 has also achieved a thrust adjustment range of 50% - 110%. This ability allows the rocket to precisely "brake" at the last moment.

The "acrobatic performance" in the air - When the rocket is flying at high speeds in the atmosphere, it needs to complete triple control: the grid fins act like a steering wheel to control the course, the small thrusters of the RCS (Attitude Control System) are responsible for fine - tuning the attitude, and the engine swing (thrust vector control) provides the final precise correction. The three systems switch seamlessly, allowing a multi - ton iron cylinder to maintain balance in the