News
DeepSpace: Chinese rocket startups make tangible progress on the path to orbital launch
In the last six or so months, a range of small Chinese rocket startups have begun to make serious progress in the nascent commercial industry, including several inaugural orbital launch attempts, extensive propulsion testing, and more. Rising above the fray are a handful of uniquely notable companies: Landspace, Linkspace, OneSpace, and iSpace (creative, I know).
While the names leave something lacking, several companies have truly impressive ambitions and can already point to major tech development programs as evidence for their follow-through. Linkspace is arguably the most interesting company with respect to what they are doing today, while Landspace has the ambition and expertise to build and launch some truly capable rockets in the near-term.
OneSpace & iSpace
- OneSpace recently made its first attempt at orbital launch after completing an OS-M1 rocket, nominally capable of placing 200 kg (450 lb) in a 300 km (190 mi) low Earth orbit (LEO). The March 2019 attempt failed 45 seconds into launch, likely caused by an improperly-installed gyroscope that guided the rocket in the wrong direction.
- This failure is by no means a bad thing. Reaching orbit on one’s first try is extraordinarily rare, particularly for private companies with no prior experience developing launch vehicles. SpaceX’s first three Falcon 1 launches failed before success was found on Flight 4. Rocket Lab’s Electron launch debut was forced to abort before reaching orbit due to faulty third-party communications equipment.
- OneSpace has several additional suborbital OS-X launches and may be able to attempt one additional OS-M1 orbital launch before the end of 2019.
- Down the road, the company wants to enhance its payload capabilities by adding additional solid rocket strap-on boosters to OS-M1 (designated M2 and M4). OS-M4 would be able to launch as much as 750 kg (1650 lb) into LEO.
- iSpace is in a similar boat. Its Hyperbola-1 rocket relies on three solid stages and a liquid fourth stage and is designed to place 300 kg (660 lb) into LEO. iSpace has plans to attempt the company’s first orbital launch as early as June 2019.
- Having already raised more than $100M in investment, iSpace also has strong backing for the development of its next-gen Hyperbola-2 rocket. The methalox-based vehicle will have a reusable booster capable of vertical landings and should be able to launch almost 2 tons to LEO. The rocket’s first launch is expected to occur no earlier than late 2020.
Linkspace
- In April 2019, Linkspace began flight-testing a sort of miniature version of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Grasshopper testbed. Known as NewLine Baby, the small suborbital prototype is designed to improve the company’s technical familiarity with vertically landing orbital-class rocket boosters after missions. Thus far, hop testing has been a great success.
- Baby weighs 1.5 t (1100 lb), is 8.1m (27 ft) tall, and is powered by five liquid methane and oxygen (methalox) rocket engines.
- The company hopes to transfer the knowledge gained into NewLine-1, a partially reusable orbital-class rocket designed to place 200 kg in LEO. Linkspace could attempt their first orbital launch as early as 2021.
- The two-stage rocket’s booster would separate a few minutes into launch and attempt a vertical landing on a pad or boat, the same approach SpaceX has used with unprecedented success.
- The similarities with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 are honestly not the worst thing. SpaceX has no patent on vertically landing rockets and has never attempted to corner the industry. Copying a successful new paradigm is certainly better than doing nothing.
- (For the record, Blue Origin did the exact opposite and attempted to patent vertically landing rockets at sea in 2014, before the company had conducted a single serious launch and at the same time as SpaceX was already planning barge recoveries of Falcon 9 boosters.)
- One could even say that Linkspace and several other Chinese companies are actually doing better than industry heavyweights like ULA and Arianespace by simply embracing the new paradigm, as opposed to denial, pearl-clutching, and half-measure responses.
Landspace
- Finally, there is Landspace. Perhaps the most exciting company of the bunch, Landspace is developing a fairly large methalox launch vehicle named ZhuQue-2 (ZQ-2). Powered by several fairly large TQ-12 liquid rocket engines, ZQ-2 is designed to launch up to 4t (8800 lb) to an orbit of 200 km (120 mi) and would produce up to 2650 kN (600,000 lbf) of thrust at liftoff, about a third of SpaceX’s Falcon 9.
- The two-stage ZQ-2 is not currently being designed for reusability, but an upgraded three-stage variant (ZQ-2A) would feature a much larger payload fairing and improve payload performance to 200 km by 50%, from 4t to 6t.
- Landspace will attempt ZQ-2’s inaugural launch as early as 2020. Critically, the company is just completed the first full-scale prototype of the TQ-12 engine meant to power the rocket and could begin static fire tests just a month or two from now.
- Tianque-12 (TQ-12) is a fairly unique engine. Powered by liquid methane and oxygen (methalox), TQ-12 uses a gas-generator propulsion cycle and is designed to produce up to 80t (175,000 lbf) of thrust. In a sense, TQ-12 is basically a slightly less powerful methalox variant of SpaceX’s Merlin 1D engine.
- The fact that Landspace is already in a position to begin static fire tests of the engine powering its next-gen rocket bodes very well for the company’s future plans. At a minimum, it likely means that Landspace is much closer to offering multi-ton commercial launch services compared to its competitors.
- Aside from its next-gen ambitions, Landspace has also developed a much smaller three-stage rocket known as ZQ-1. Capable of launching up to 300 kg into LEO, ZQ-1 nearly reached orbit on its October 2018 launch debut, failing midway through its third-stage burn.
- For now, the Chinese launch startup scene is downright frenetic. The title of “first private Chinese company to reach orbit” has yet to be awarded, and more than half a dozen groups are practically racing to secure it.
Mission Updates:
- SpaceX’s CRS-17 Cargo Dragon spacecraft successfully rendezvoused and berthed with the ISS on May 6th.
- Potentially less than two weeks after the Falcon 9’s May 4th CRS-17 launch, SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink mission is scheduled to occur as early as May 13th, although delays of a few days are likely.
- SpaceX’s second West Coast launch of 2019 – carrying Canada’s Radarsat Constellation – finally has an official launch date – June 11th. The mission will reuse Falcon 9 B1051.
- Falcon Heavy’s third launch remains tentatively scheduled no earlier than June 22nd.
Photo of the Week
Falcon 9 B1056 returned to dry ground less than 24 hours after launching CRS-17 and landing aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). (Tom Cross)
Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed today on the social media platform X that legacy automakers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, do not want to license the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, at least not without a long list of their own terms.
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy,” Musk said on X. “When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk made the remark in response to a note we wrote about earlier today from Melius Research, in which analyst Rob Wertheimer said, “Our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is,” in terms of autonomy and self-driving development.
Wertheimer believes there are hundreds of billions of dollars in value headed toward Tesla’s way because of its prowess with FSD.
A few years ago, Musk first remarked that Tesla was in early talks with one legacy automaker regarding licensing Full Self-Driving for its vehicles. Tesla never confirmed which company it was, but given Musk’s ongoing talks with Ford CEO Jim Farley at the time, it seemed the Detroit-based automaker was the likely suspect.
Tesla’s Elon Musk reiterates FSD licensing offer for other automakers
Ford has been perhaps the most aggressive legacy automaker in terms of its EV efforts, but it recently scaled back its electric offensive due to profitability issues and weak demand. It simply was not making enough vehicles, nor selling the volume needed to turn a profit.
Musk truly believes that many of the companies that turn their backs on FSD now will suffer in the future, especially considering the increased chance it could be a parallel to what has happened with EV efforts for many of these companies.
Unfortunately, they got started too late and are now playing catch-up with Tesla, XPeng, BYD, and the other dominating forces in EVs across the globe.
Tesla is backtracking on a strange adjustment it made to its in-car Navigation feature after numerous complaints from owners convinced the company to make a change.
Tesla’s in-car Navigation is catered to its vehicles, as it routes Supercharging stops and preps your vehicle for charging with preconditioning. It is also very intuitive, and features other things like weather radar and a detailed map outlining points of interest.
However, a recent change to the Navigation by Tesla did not go unnoticed, and owners were really upset about it.
For trips that required multiple Supercharger stops, Tesla decided to implement a naming change, which did not show the city or state of each charging stop. Instead, it just showed the business where the Supercharger was located, giving many owners an unwelcome surprise.
However, Tesla’s Director of Supercharging, Max de Zegher, admitted the update was a “big mistake on our end,” and made a change that rolled out within 24 hours:
The naming change should have happened at once, instead of in 2 sequential steps. That was a big miss on our end. We do listen to the community and we do course-correct fast. The accelerated fix rolled out last night. The Tesla App is updated and most in-car touchscreens should…
— Max (@MdeZegher) November 20, 2025
The lack of a name for the city where a Supercharging stop would be made caused some confusion for owners in the short term. Some drivers argued that it was more difficult to make stops at some familiar locations that were special to them. Others were not too keen on not knowing where they were going to be along their trip.
Tesla was quick to scramble to resolve this issue, and it did a great job of rolling it out in an expedited manner, as de Zegher said that most in-car touch screens would notice the fix within one day of the change being rolled out.
Additionally, there will be even more improvements in December, as Tesla plans to show the common name/amenity below the site name as well, which will give people a better idea of what to expect when they arrive at a Supercharger.
News
Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target
The regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
The Dutch vehicle authority RDW responded to Tesla’s recent updates about its efforts to bring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Europe, confirming that February 2026 remains the target month for Tesla to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
While acknowledging the tentative schedule with Tesla, the regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
RDW confirms 2026 target, warns Feb 2026 timeline is not guaranteed
In its response, which was posted on its official website, the RDW clarified that it does not disclose details about ongoing manufacturer applications due to competitive sensitivity. However, the agency confirmed that both parties have agreed on a February 2026 window during which Tesla is expected to show that FSD (Supervised) can meet required safety and compliance standards. Whether Tesla can satisfy those conditions within the timeline “remains to be seen,” RDW added.
RDW also directly addressed Tesla’s social media request encouraging drivers to contact the regulator to express support. While thanking those who already reached out, RDW asked the public to stop contacting them, noting these messages burden customer-service resources and have no influence on the approval process.
“In the message on X, Tesla calls on Tesla drivers to thank the RDW and to express their enthusiasm about this planning to us by contacting us. We thank everyone who has already done so, and would like to ask everyone not to contact us about this. It takes up unnecessary time for our customer service. Moreover, this will have no influence on whether or not the planning is met,” the RDW wrote.
The RDW shares insights on EU approval requirements
The RDW further outlined how new technology enters the European market when no existing legislation directly covers it. Under EU Regulation 2018/858, a manufacturer may seek an exemption for unregulated features such as advanced driver assistance systems. The process requires a Member State, in this case the Netherlands, to submit a formal request to the European Commission on the manufacturer’s behalf.
Approval then moves to a committee vote. A majority in favor would grant EU-wide authorization, allowing the technology across all Member States. If the vote fails, the exemption is valid only within the Netherlands, and individual countries must decide whether to accept it independently.
Before any exemption request can be filed, Tesla must complete a comprehensive type-approval process with the RDW, including controlled on-road testing. Provided that FSD Supervised passes these regulatory evaluations, the exemption could be submitted for broader EU consideration.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
Tesla backtracks on strange Nav feature after numerous complaints
