China Made Itself a JOKE When Building SpaceX Starship Mechazilla Clone...Musk's Reaction!

Copying in the aerospace industry has always sparked debate, especially when it comes to Chinese companies. But what if we told you that some of them are copying so extensively they're abandoning their original designs altogether? That's exactly what Deep Blue Aerospace, a rising Chinese startup, appears to be doing. They're merging features from several advanced rocket systems, most notably SpaceX's Starship, into the blueprint of their next generation vehicle. So, just how bold is this new copycat rocket system from China? And why can't it outperform SpaceX's rockets? Let's explore the answers in today's episode of Great SpaceX. After years of rapid development, the startup trend in China's commercial aerospace sector shows no signs of slowing down. Many of these companies are following a bold controversial strategy, copying existing technology to speed up progress and close the gap with global leaders. One of the clearest examples of this approach is Deep Blue Aerospace. Deep Blue is currently working on a rocket family called Nebula. Last year, the company attempted a hop test with its Nebula 1 vehicle, which ultimately failed. In response, they shifted focus to a new concept, combining the Nebula 1 booster with a capsule nearly identical to SpaceX's Dragon. Their goal is to create a suborbital tourism system that mirrors Blue Origin's New Shepard. While they've carried out some test campaigns, Deep Blue has yet to complete an official launch. Still, their plans on paper continue to evolve. A recent update on X gave us a glimpse of just how bold those plans are. An image from a presentation slide showed a rocket standing on an orbital launch mount next to a launch tower, a design unmistakably similar to SpaceX's Starship launch setup. This imagery sparked immediate comparisons, especially since another Chinese company, Cosmolap, revealed similar plans months earlier for its leap or UH rocket. Now, Deep Blue Aerospace appears to be following the same route. Judging by their road map, this launch system is likely intended for their upcoming Nebula 2 rocket, a much larger and more advanced vehicle. Let's take a closer look at the design details of Nebula 2. At first glance, its blue and white color scheme may remind you of Blue Origin's New Glenn, especially the booster section. Structurally, however, Nebula 2 bears a strong resemblance to SpaceX's Falcon 9. It's a two-stage rocket featuring a booster, second stage, and a payload fairing at the top. The inner stage sports a different color, and visual cues suggest the use of carbon fiber in its construction. Technical specifications back up the visual similarities. According to the latest design data, Nebula 2 will stand 70 m tall with a diameter of five, making it the same height as Falcon 9, but with a wider body. The rocket will be powered by 11 liquid oxygen and kerosene engines called Thunder RS, each generating 130 tons of thrust. That gives Nebula 2 a total liftoff thrust of around 1,430 tons, making it even more powerful than Falcon 9's 1,270 ton thrust capability. Interestingly, Deep Blue Aerospace reported that these engines were successfully tested last year. In those tests, the Thunder RS engine was ignited four times, reaching a total burn time of 60 seconds, with the longest individual ignition lasting 20. The company stated that these trials helped verify the gas generator's reliability under various working conditions and fuel mixture ratios. Key components such as the gas generator outlet, turbo pump gas collector ring, and evaporator exhaust pipe were also evaluated to simulate real engine conditions. With their latest progress, Deep Blue is confidently promoting their new engine, Thunder RS, as a gamecher in China's private space sector. The company claims the engine offers high reliability, high thrust reusability, non-toxic, and environmentally friendly characteristics and economy, underscoring what they see as proof of their advanced design philosophy and technical capabilities. With this engine powering their Nebula 2 rocket, Deep Blue says the vehicle will be capable of delivering 25 tons to LEO, just slightly more than SpaceX's Falcon 9. But engines are just one piece of the puzzle. Deep Blue Aerospace is also replicating the infrastructure needed to support rapid reusable missions, drawing direct inspiration from SpaceX's Starship launch system, the Nebula 2 is shown standing on a six-legged orbital launch mount, remarkably similar to the one at Starbase Pad A. Next to it is a towering steel framed structure approximately 120 m tall, resembling SpaceX's launch integration tower. The tower features robotic arms similar to SpaceX's chopsticks or Mechazilla arms and a quick disconnect arm for fueling and data links. This entire setup is planned for deployment at the Jwan satellite launch center. According to translated documents from Deep Blue, the site will also include fueling systems, testing facilities, assembly buildings, a satellite production center, and other support infrastructure forming a comprehensive launch ecosystem. One notable difference from their previous design is that Nebula 2 does not have landing legs. This indicates a major shift. The company appears to have abandoned its original landing concept in favor of SpaceX's catch and recover system. The plan is for Nebula 2's booster to return to the launch site and be caught midair by the robotic arms rather than landing vertically with legs. This strategy minimizes ground impact stress, speeds up recovery, and reduces wear and tear on the vehicle, enabling a high frequency, lowcost launch cadence that could drive future commercial success. As for the timeline, Deep Blue Aerospace is targeting 2026 for the first official launch of Nebula 2. Until then, the company will continue testing the smaller Nebula 1 in the coming months. So, with bold designs, strong claims, and clear inspiration from SpaceX, can Deep Blue Aerospace's ambitious copycat system actually outperform the original? Leave a yes or no in the comments. Hit that like button as well, and don't forget to subscribe to stay updated as we follow SpaceX and the global space race closely. As for my answer, it's a no. Deep Blue Aerospace's approach simply isn't practical or sustainable. When looking at their road map and design choices, several red flags become immediately apparent. The first and most obvious issue is their repeated habit of combining multiple elements from various rockets into a single system. For instance, the booster of Nebula 2 resembles SpaceX's Falcon 9, which was originally optimized for vertical landings using deployable legs, either on a drone ship or at a groundbased landing pad. However, Deep Blue Aerospace has removed the landing legs and chosen instead to implement a catching mechanism using a launch tower similar to SpaceX's Mechazilla system. This decision introduces unnecessary complexity. To enable catching, they'll need to add landing hooks or pins to the booster and develop a large precise mechanical tower system capable of catching the rocket midair. This is not just ambitious, it's risky and extremely difficult. Even SpaceX, the only company to successfully demonstrate this method, only achieved it within the past year and after many iterations of Starship prototypes and tower testing. And let's not forget vertical landing alone is already difficult. Most space agencies and private companies still struggle with consistent success in drone ship or ground pad landings. Deep Blue Aerospace choosing the hardest method of recovery, catching without even first mastering leg based landings reflects a major misstep in priorities. Secondly, Nebula 2 is still only partially reusable with a design strongly reminiscent of Falcon 9, but without the benefit of its mature reusability systems. The materials used in the rocket and the kerosene/liquid oxygen fuel choice are both costly and not optimized for a fully reusable system. It raises the question, does it make sense to pair this type of rocket with a Starship style launchpad? Clearly not. SpaceX's Mechazilla and OM are built to support a fully reusable and rapid turnaround vehicle like Starship, not a partially reusable system that needs extensive refurbishment after each flight. This makes Nebula 2's architecture inefficient and financially questionable, especially if the rocket is ever used for deep space missions. A half copy of Starship's infrastructure matched with a Falcon 9 inspired rocket results in a mismatched, overengineered solution that doesn't take full advantage of either design philosophy. Worse, Deep Blue Aerospace isn't just copying the Starship system. They've also cloned SpaceX's Dragon capsule, attaching it to the Nebula 1 booster to propose a suborbital tourism system similar to Blue Origin's New Shepard. This Frankensteinike approach, mixing design elements from different companies and rockets, doesn't reflect innovation. It reflects a lack of original engineering direction and appears to be more about mimicking success than building it from the ground up. And Deep Blue is far from alone in this. Even China's leading state-run space agency, CASC, CASC, has begun to mimic SpaceX. Their future version of the Long March 9 has shifted from a traditional three-stage configuration to a two-stage design with aerodynamic flaps, essentially copying Starship. This trend of abandoning original designs to imitate another company without a full understanding of the underlying technology is deeply concerning. This kind of blind imitation doesn't result in sustainable growth. Startups that do this often collapse under the weight of their own ambitions, especially when they run into unexpected failures. In the case of Deep Blue Aerospace, we've already seen this happen. Their Nebula 1 hop test in 2024 failed, resulting in a destroyed prototype. The issue was traced to the engine's shutdown phase, where it failed to reduce altitude properly and likely lost thrust entirely during the final descent, causing the rocket to crash and explode. Rocket engines are incredibly complex systems. Fixing one takes time, resources, and technical depth. Not something you can fast track by copying external designs. If Deep Blue doesn't thoroughly address these engineering gaps, their upcoming tests could very well fail again, potentially delaying the Nebula 2 program even further. This trend of setbacks isn't limited to Deep Blue Aerospace. Other companies in China's commercial space scene have encountered similar difficulties. Space space pioneers Tang Long 3 recently suffered a static fire failure and CASC's Space Kinetic had a failed mission just last year. Among them, Landspace with their Zuchu rocket remains the only company to show truly promising results. So, while it's tempting to think that copying a winning formula will lead to success, the truth is much harsher. Without deep technical understanding and an original development path, imitation becomes a dead end, and Deep Blue Aerospace's current trajectory seems headed in that direction. It can be said that behind the flashy plan, an uncertain and challenging future awaits Deep Blue Aerospace. While every organization hopes to reach the top, copying without a true understanding of the core technologies will eventually lead both the system and the company down a dangerous path. That's why Deep Blue Aerospace must evaluate its road map with great caution and care. So, let's wait and see what decision they make next and what kind of outcomes will come from this risky copycat strategy. This has been Kevin with Great SpaceX. Don't forget to like the video and subscribe if you haven't already to stay updated with yours truly in the latest milestones in SpaceX's journey. Thank you so much for watching and always remember, curiosity, imagination, and inspiration will follow you so long as you keep looking up.