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)
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
