SpaceX and NASA Ramps Up to Next Missions while China's PERFECT Starship Revealed…Space Weekly #26

SpaceX is preparing to roll out hardware for flight 12 and beyond. NASA continues ramping up toward the Aremis 2 mission early this year. New details about Raptor 4 are beginning to surface, and China is now openly pursuing a SpaceX copycat strategy, complete with near identical designs and bold claims. Let's break down the biggest stories of the week in this episode of Great SpaceX. Time to come back. After a record-breaking period of preparation, the hardware for flight 12, which will be the first V3 flight, now appears ready for deployment. What will SpaceX take on as its next step? At the same time, operations at Starbase continue to deliver a steady stream of notable and compelling developments. We also know that the B19 booster stack is complete, supported by striking images from inside Mega Bay 1. After nearly a week of preparation, which was likely needed to install the new COPV system, B19 now appears ready to roll. Meanwhile, S39 has been completed for quite some time. As a result, it is increasingly likely that flight 12 hardware is about to move with B19 being the most probable candidate. At the time of recording this video, there were no visible signs of movement. However, by the time you're watching this, that roll out may have already taken place. This raises an important question. Why might B19 roll out before S39 even though S39 completed stacking earlier? The most likely explanation involves ongoing improvements to the ship test platform. In recent days, cross bracing has been installed and a new flex hose system for the SQD is being assembled at Sanchez. This system is likely part of a broader upgrade planned for Massie. Because of this, the ship test platform likely requires additional time before it's fully ready. Under those conditions, beginning testing with the booster first becomes the more logical approach. This sequence also allows for a smoother testing cadence. Once cryogenic testing for Super Heavy is complete, SpaceX can proceed with ship testing without delays caused by booster operations. For B19 to be ready this early, its production speed once again deserves attention. A 28day production timeline is a record for Super Heavy in particular and for Starship hardware overall. It highlights SpaceX's flexibility and ability to adapt rapidly under challenging circumstances. This level of performance will be increasingly important moving forward. If B19 has indeed rolled out, it will first undergo a stress test before proceeding to cryogenic testing. This process mirrors what was performed on B18 and is designed to verify the integrity of critical structures such as fuel tanks and internal plumbing before any propellant is loaded. If that process proceeds smoothly, cryogenic testing could take place within the first few days of the new year. Now that the previously identified speed issue has been addressed, the primary concern surrounding B19 is reliability. No one wants a repeat of the problems encountered more than a month ago, particularly since B19 was built under tight production timelines. Hopefully, SpaceX has implemented the necessary upgrades during this production run to prevent similar issues from occurring again. So, what comes next? Following cryogenic testing, B19 will return to Meabay. This is when the most significant V3 upgrade will arrive for installation, the Raptor 3 engines. Once that process is complete, the booster will be very close to demonstrating its full performance capability. So, are you ready to follow the continued progress of B19 and possibly S39 as well in the opening days of the new year? If so, respond with ready in the comments section down below. And don't forget to like the video and subscribe to the channel to continue following SpaceX's development journey. Beyond the preparations for flight 12 hardware, several other important activities are also underway. As part of preparations for booster static fire testing, SpaceX recently conducted a major test of the tank farm system. This largecale test appeared to involve tanks containing liquid oxygen and methane. The intensity of the test was evident from the significant venting which blanketed the tank farm area and nearby runways. The test took place over an extended window beginning at 11:00 a.m. on December 28th and continuing until nearly midnight on the 29th. The purpose of this test was to verify the reliability of the tank farm after a long period of inactivity, which dates back to the flight 11 launch in mid-occtober. The system must be fully prepared for integration with pad 2 ahead of upcoming tests. Additional installations, including the possible addition of vaporizers, may also have been involved. A related section was recently rolled to the launch site, likely as part of ongoing tank farm upgrades. In addition, as mentioned in an earlier update, SpaceX will also be conducting COPV testing at Massie. This testing is particularly important because this system experienced repeated issues during V2 operations, including failures linked to recent Superheavy and ship test explosions. Recent images from Staractory and B19 suggest substantial changes to this system. It appears more robust, capable of handling higher operating pressures, reducing the risk of leaks or explosions and supporting long-term operations once Starship enters full reuse. As a result, there is strong interest in seeing how SpaceX proceeds with COPV testing at Massie. Starbase continues to operate at a constant pace, even during periods without launches or major tests. As core testing ramps up, activity is expected to increase further over the coming years as SpaceX works toward its most critical goals. With that in mind, let's welcome the new year and prepare for what lies ahead. Starbase now feels like it is turning a page. The era of the two towers is ending, replaced by infrastructure built for execution rather than experimentation. The timeline is tightening. The pieces are aligning. Fully reusable orbital flight is no longer a distant vision. It's approaching fast. And the question is no longer whether SpaceX will attempt it, but whether we are ready to see it happen. After years of anticipation, the next official lunar mission, Artemis 2, is finally drawing closer. NASA continues preparations with the space launch system, the Orion spacecraft, and supporting infrastructure. But major questions remain. The main ones being what comes next and how secure is the long-term future of these programs? And with uncertainty still surrounding schedules and readiness, how far along is Artemis 2 really? And why does its path forward remain so unpredictable? If the 2022 mission was a quiet journey around the moon without a crew, then the upcoming flight scheduled for early next year will mark a historic turning point. For the first time in more than 50 years, humans will travel farther from Earth than any crew since the Apollo era. That mission is Artemis 2. And according to the current schedule, NASA aims to launch within a window that stretches from February through April of next year. This means the countdown to humanity's return to deep lunar space has effectively entered its final phase with only a matter of months remaining. Naturally, this raises an important question. How exactly is NASA preparing for such a highstakes mission after years of delays, revisions, and public scrutiny? In its latest updates, NASA has highlighted a major milestone that brings Artemis 2 closer to launch readiness. The agency has installed a crew access arm on the mobile launcher, a critical piece of infrastructure that was not present during the uncrrewed Artemis 1 mission. This specialized system is designed specifically for human space flight and allows astronauts to safely and efficiently board the Orion spacecraft while it's stacked at top the space launch system rocket. The addition of the crew access arm represents a clear transition from testing hardware to preparing for real human operations. With this installation complete, the fully assembled vehicle is expected to move closer to the launchpad in the near future. Once there, it'll be connected to the launcher and subjected to a series of integrated tests. These tests are designed to verify that every mechanical, electrical, and procedural element functions exactly as intended. Following that, the Artemis 2 crew will conduct rehearsal activities that closely mirror the actions they will perform on launch day itself. While the hardware continues to take shape, the astronauts assigned to Aremis 2 have remained deeply engaged throughout this entire preparation period. Crew training has been continuous, intensive, and increasingly realistic. One of the most significant recent milestones was the successful completion of the countdown demonstration test, often referred to as the CDDT. Unlike earlier simulations that relied heavily on data and virtual environments, this test involved the astronauts physically boarding the Orion spacecraft. At the time, Orion was mounted at top the SLS inside NASA's vehicle assembly building at the Kennedy Space Center. During this exercise, the crew experienced the motions, timing, and procedures that closely replicate those expected on launch day. They wore their full spaceac suits, entered and exited the spacecraft, and followed real countdown protocols under authentic conditions. The countdown during this demonstration proceeded in sequence and halted at tminus 29 seconds. This is only moments before the final automated steps that would normally lead directly to liftoff. Reaching this point without issue was a strong indicator that both the systems and the crew are operating as expected. So far, all results have been positive. After the remaining preparations on the mobile launcher are completed, the entire stack will be transported from the vehicle assembly building to the launchpad. There, the astronauts will repeat similar tests, but this time in an environment that offers a much higher level of realism. Weather exposure, pad infrastructure, and realworld spatial constraints will add layers of complexity that cannot be fully replicated indoors. These activities are only part of the extensive preparation campaign for Artemis 2. While the program was relatively quiet in previous years, progress throughout this year has been notably steady and visible. That said, it's also clear that this progress falls short of the ambitious timelines originally envisioned when Artemis was first announced. Looking more closely at the hardware, assembly of the SLS has been underway since July of 2024. core stage components, solid rocket booster segments, RS25 engines, the intram cryogenic propulsion stage, and the launch vehicle stage adapter have all been delivered, integrated, and stacked in a carefully choreographed sequence. Each component must meet strict tolerances before it can be combined with the rest of the vehicle, and even small issues can introduce delays that ripple through the schedule. Meanwhile, the Orion spacecraft has followed its own long and complex path. After Artemis 1, Orion became the subject of intense scrutiny due to unexpected erosion observed on its heat shield during re-entry. This issue sparked debates over design choices, testing methodologies, and risk tolerance. Despite these concerns, Loheed Martin delivered the Artemis 2 Orion capsule to NASA in late April of 2025. From there, the spacecraft underwent fueling operations, integration with the launch abort system, and a series of validation checks. By late October, Orion was finally installed a top the SLS, marking a major milestone toward flight readiness. Taken together, these developments make it clear that NASA's preparations for its first crude lunar mission in decades are real, active, and increasingly urgent. Time is no longer an abstract concept for Artemis 2. Every remaining task must be executed correctly because there is little room left for error. That brings us to the launch date itself. As of now, NASA lists the earliest possible launch date as no earlier than February 6th. However, the presence of a wide launch window extending into April suggests that the agency is still managing significant uncertainty. This is not surprising. Artemis 2 must succeed not only for the safety of its crew, but also for the credibility of the entire Artemis program. For that reason, February 6th should be viewed as a target rather than a promise. Delays of days or even weeks remain entirely possible and a shift into March or April would not be unexpected. When dealing with a mission of this complexity, caution is not only reasonable but necessary. With that in mind, many observers have begun to speculate about when Artemis 2 will actually lift off. February, March, or April all remain on the table, and each option reflects a different balance between schedule pressure and risk management. Now, while Artemis 2 is moving steadily toward launch, it would be impossible to discuss the mission without addressing the broader controversy surrounding the future of NASA's traditional systems. Support for the SLS and Orion remains strong in some circles, particularly among former NASA administrators. Jim Benstein, for example, has openly criticized aspects of the current Artemis architecture while still advocating for the continued use of SLS, even proposing a dual launch approach to improve mission flexibility. However, this support is far from universal. A growing number of critics point to the slow pace, high cost, and quality issues that have plagued NASA's flagship vehicles. Artemis 1 alone required more than a decade of development and billions of dollars before it ever left the ground. Those same structural challenges are expected to persist with Artemis 2 and beyond. In previous years, internal and external assessments that suggested the probability of SLS cancellation was alarmingly high. At times, estimates reached as much as 75%. This year, that uncertainty has intensified. The SLS and Orion were reportedly included on lists of programs considered for potential cuts or cancellation with some proposals suggesting that they could be retired after Artemis 3. At the same time, competing proposals have emerged that aim to preserve these systems through continued funding and incremental upgrades. As a result, hardware preparations for later missions appear to be moving forward even as long-term policy decisions remain unresolved. This tension reflects a broader struggle within NASA and the US government over how best to pursue deep space exploration. Recent comments from NASA's new administrator Jared Isacman have further intensified the debate. Isaacman has been unusually candid in his assessments of NASA's existing systems. Regarding Orion, he noted that the spacecraft is roughly 20 years old and had never carried a crew prior to Artemis 2 despite its long development history. He also emphasized the seriousness of the heat shield issues observed after Artemis 1. Turning to the SLS, Isaacman highlighted a recent solid rocket booster test that ended with an unusual malfunction. He also reiterated long-standing concerns over quality control, particularly with the exploration upper stage under Boeing's responsibility. Beyond that, he noted that the lunar lander remains far from a full operational demonstration while the next generation EVA space suits continue to lag behind schedule. Too directly, Isaacman acknowledged that the mission is years behind its original timeline and will not enter lunar orbit. He summarized the program as one built largely on legacy space shuttle hardware, flying at an extremely low rate and costing far more while taking significantly longer than it reasonably should. Coming from the head of the agency itself, these remarks have raised serious questions about the long-term future of NASA's in-house launch and crew systems. At the core of the criticism is a fundamental limitation. The space launch system is not reusable. Each launch expends billions of dollars in hardware that cannot be recovered. For a sustained lunar presence, this model becomes increasingly difficult to justify. After the first crews arrive, launch cadence would need to rise sharply to support base construction, resource utilization, science, and logistics. Maintaining SLS and Orion at that pace would place immense strain on budgets and infrastructure. This leaves two possible paths. One is a sweeping transformation that delivers greater flexibility, affordability, and flight rate. The other is eventual cancellation with Artemis shifting largely or entirely to commercial providers. Under Isaacman's leadership, neither outcome appears to be off the table. As uncertainty grows around NASA's legacy systems, the commercial space sector continues to build momentum. SpaceX stands at the center of that shift. Despite development delays and ongoing design challenges, Starship remains the backbone of NASA's lunar architecture, offering a scale and payload capacity that no other vehicle can currently match. Starship could radically accelerate lunar exploration, delivering massive cargo and crews, and potentially serving as part of the moon's infrastructure as a habitat or logistics hub. No other rocket in development comes close to this capability. At the same time, SpaceX's Falcon and Dragon fleet continues to provide reliable, high cadence crew and cargo transport. With Dragon proving more flexible and far more cost effective than Orion, the remaining challenge is execution. Orbital refueling, routine orbital flights, controlled landings, payload deployment, and the lunar starship HLS must all be demonstrated. If achieved, they would redefine human space flight. And under Jared Isaacman's leadership, NASA is expected to strongly back this effort. Blue Origin remains an important part of that equation as well. After years of delays, New Glenn's success represented genuine progress. Its landers could add valuable redundancy. Even if the company's slower, more traditional approach constrains rapid scaling. Even so, SpaceX and Blue Origin together now form the backbone of America's return to the moon. Looking further ahead, companies such as Rocket Lab and Stoke Space could add additional depth to lunar operations. Vehicles like Neutron and other reusable systems may take on supporting roles from deploying rovers to building out communications infrastructure at significantly lower cost. As commercial capabilities mature, NASA's own vehicles face an uncertain future. SLS and Orion will anchor Artemis 2 and three, but their long-term value rests on flawless execution. Any major failure could hasten their retirement. After years of stagnation, NASA may be approaching a turning point. Its future likely lies not in owning every system, but in orchestrating a competitive commercial ecosystem. With reform, strong private partners, and renewed leadership, the US can sustain space leadership through innovation, flexibility, and scale. Why is Starship the most powerful rocket ever built? Many point to its massive design, but an equally critical factor receives far less attention. The relentless evolution of the Raptor engine. Raptor 3 is expected to debut within weeks. Yet, SpaceX and Elon Musk are already signaling the next leap with Raptor 4. This future iteration is projected to introduce sweeping upgrades that push engine performance to new extremes and redefine benchmarks for power. If those gains are realized, Raptor 4 could surpass every competing engine, including Blue Origins BE4. So, how will this next generation achieve such an advantage? The existence of such a version has been suggested directly by Elon Musk himself, the CEO of SpaceX. During an interview at Starbase with Everyday Astronaut, Musk discussed the future of the Raptor engine family and made a striking statement. He noted that a future Raptor could reach 330 tons of thrust. While he did not explicitly label this engine as Raptor 4, the numbers tell a clear story. An increase of roughly 50 tons of thrust over Raptor 3 is far too large to be a minor upgrade or a small variant, such as a hypothetical Raptor 3X. Such a leap strongly suggests an entirely new version. In other words, a clean break from the current generation. At 330 tons of thrust, this future Raptor would be approximately 17% more powerful than the Raptor engine we are about to see enter service. That increase may sound incremental on paper, but at the scale of Starship, it's transformative. To understand why, let's consider the math. Starship's Superheavy booster uses 33 Raptor engines at liftoff. Multiply 330 tons of thrust by 33 engines and you arrive at a staggering 10,890 tons of total thrust. That translates to roughly 24 million pounds of force pushing the vehicle off the launchpad. This number matters because it crosses a symbolic and practical threshold. With Raptor 4, SpaceX would officially surpass the 10,000 ton liftoff thrust milestone. Raptor 3, despite being extraordinarily powerful, tops out at around 9,240 tons of total thrust. Impressive, but still short of this longstated goal. Musk has repeatedly emphasized how important this milestone is. Last December, while comparing Starship to the Saturn 5, he explained the significance in clear terms. He stated that Starship already has more than twice the thrust of Saturn 5. He then added that when Raptor reaches 300 tons of thrust at liftoff, which Raptor 3X could probably achieve, and Raptor 4 certainly would, Starship would reach 10,000 metric tonses of thrust at liftoff. That equates to roughly 22 1.5 million pounds of force, or almost exactly three times the thrust of Saturn 5. More recently, in November, Musk reinforced the point by highlighting another advantage. He stated that Raptor 4 should outperform the Merlin engine by more than 10 times in cost per ton of thrust while also improving thrusttoe ratio and specific impulse. This underscores that Raptor 4 is not just about brute force. It's about efficiency, economics, and scalability. Thrust, however, is only one part of the story. Another critical metric Musk has mentioned is impulse, particularly for vacuum optimized engines. He noted that within a few years, SpaceX expects a field of Raptor 3 or Raptor 4 vacuum variant to field a Raptor 3 or Raptor 4 vacuum variant with a giant nozzle and a specific impulse of around 380 seconds. That number carries enormous implications. Higher specific impulse translates directly into more efficient propellant use, and those gains compound rapidly. Starship could lift more cargo or carry more passengers without increasing tank volume. Payload margins would grow. Reusability would improve as well with larger propellant reserves available for landing. Most critically, high impulse vacuum raptors would dramatically strengthen deep space capability, supporting everything from sustained lunar operations to eventual missions to Mars. Up to this point, the focus has been on sea level Raptors, but improvements at sea level naturally propagate to vacuum variants. The Raptor 3 vacuum engine is expected to generate roughly 306 tons of thrust. If a Raptor 4 sele pushes beyond that mark, a Raptor 4 vacuum variant could take an even larger step forward. Thrust levels exceeding 350 tons are well within reason, placing it in an entirely new performance class. Reaching these performance targets will likely require a combination of design changes. SpaceX could further expand the nozzle to improve efficiency in vacuum, increase combustion chamber pressure, or pursue both paths simultaneously. The company has already pushed chamber pressures to levels once considered unrealistic, and there is little indication that this momentum is slowing, but power alone does not define the Raptor 4 vision. The other defining pillar is simplification. That trajectory is already clear. From Raptor 1 to Raptor 2 and now into Raptor 3, each generation has deliberately removed small, fragile, and failureprone components. Complex plumbing has been streamlined. External fittings have been eliminated or fully integrated. With every iteration, the engine has become cleaner, more compact, and significantly more robust. All that momentum converges in Raptor 3, the clearest expression yet of this design philosophy. Many of the delicate elements that challenged early Raptors have been eliminated entirely, leaving an engine far more resilient to heat, vibration, and manufacturing variability. Looking ahead, speculation continues to build that future Raptors could push even further in this direction, potentially evolving toward a near monolithic design with major components integrated into a single structural block. Whether that exact configuration ultimately materializes remains uncertain, but the trajectory is clear. Fewer parts, fewer joints, fewer failure points. If that path holds, the benefits begin immediately with mass. Eliminating complex assemblies reduces the need for fasteners, flanges, and redundant structural supports. Lower engine mass paired with higher thrust translates directly into improved vehicle performance. Raptor 3 already tips the scale at roughly 1,525 kg, down from 1,600 kg for Raptor 2. and it's reasonable to expect Raptor 4 to fall below the 1500 kg mark. Second, reliability would rise alongside simplicity. Many engine risks stem from small, intricate components, leaks, localized overheating, and vibration induced failures often trace back to complex assemblies. Simplifying the design eliminates these weaknesses at their source. Production is equally critical. Even with its relative complexity, Raptor 2 reached a manufacturing rate of roughly one engine per day. Once the design stabilized, SpaceX proved that high volume engine production is achievable. With fewer parts and a more straightforward assembly process, Raptor 3 could scale to multiple engines per day as the design fully matures. Raptor 4 could push this even further. A production rate exceeding 10 engines per day is not out of the question. Such numbers would be essential to support a future fleet of Starships, especially if SpaceX intends to fly frequently and build large numbers of vehicles. Post-flight inspection and refurbishment would also benefit enormously. A simpler engine is easier to inspect and faster to turn around. Combined with similar simplification across the rest of Starship, this could enable turnaround times that sound almost unbelievable. Ships reused daily, super heavy boosters reused every hour, dozens of flights per day from a single launch site. That is the mechanism through which SpaceX intends to fundamentally reshape access to space. Raptor 4 is not simply another engine upgrade. It's a cornerstone of the long-term Starship business case. The clearest point of comparison is Blue Origin's BE4, another methane fueled engine. For years, thrust was one of the few areas where BE4 held a clear edge. From the outset, it produced roughly 250 tons of thrust, surpassing both Raptor 1 and 2, which delivered about 185 and 230 tons, respectively. Their narrative changed with the arrival of Raptor 3. At roughly 280 tons of thrust, Raptor 3 finally surpassed BE4, removing one of Blue Origin's key talking points. However, Blue Origin has not stood still. After successfully completing two New Glenn launches this year, the company announced plans to upgrade the next flight. The core of that upgrade is an increase in BE4 thrust. Blue Origin has stated that it demonstrated around 283 tons of thrust on test stands and aims to reach 290 tons or approximately 640,000 lb of force. SpaceX's response appears straightforward. Raptor 4 would decisively reverse the situation. Even without Raptor 4, SpaceX could potentially introduce a Raptor 3X variant approaching 300 tons of thrust. With Raptor 4, the gap would widen substantially. It's also important to remember that individual engine thrust is only part of the equation. Starship's architecture allows SpaceX to cluster far more engines than New Glenn. As a result, Starship's total liftoff power remains many times greater than that of New Glenn, regardless of incremental BE4 upgrades. Simplicity is another area where the comparison strongly favors SpaceX. BE4's complexity appears roughly comparable to early Raptor versions. This suggests it'll struggle to achieve the level of integration and simplicity seen in Raptor 3 or envisioned for Raptor 4. Complex engines take longer to build, cost more to produce, and require extensive inspection and refurbishment. Operational consequences follow with turnaround times remaining long. Risks remain higher. The 10-month gap between New Glenn's first and second launches illustrates how complexity slows progress. Compounding the issue, BE4 must also support ULA's Vulcan Centaur, placing additional strain on production capacity. Competition also exists beyond the US. In China, numerous companies are developing rockets that resemble SpaceX designs. Many draw inspiration from Falcon 9 while adopting stainless steel structures similar to Starship. Methane fueled engines are becoming increasingly common, and some even closely resemble Raptor 3 in appearance. In terms of thrust, however, none of these engines currently approach SpaceX's Raptors. While visual similarity is easy to copy, the underlying engineering is far more difficult to replicate. Even successful engines such as Landspace's Tian 12 remain far behind in overall capability. Before any of this becomes reality, however, SpaceX must first succeed with Raptor 3. For now, all eyes are on Raptor 3 and its upcoming debut. SpaceX continues to demonstrate an almost limitless capacity for iteration and improvement. Nowhere is that more visible than in the evolution of its main engine. Thrust continues to rise, simplicity continues to improve, and efficiency continues to advance. Near identical copies of the Starship launch tower and Raptor 3 engine have already appeared. Now, an apparent one:one Starship replica has been officially unveiled. So, why is China so openly mirroring SpaceX? And will this strategy lead to real success or expose deeper limitations? According to a report from the Chinese news outlet china.com, the Starship lookalike we just examined was developed by a startup company known as Beijing Leading Rocket Technology. The vehicle was originally named Zingha 1. More recently, however, the company appears to have rebranded it as Starship 1, a move that openly signals its intention to closely mirror SpaceX's flagship rocket. The rocket follows a two-stage configuration with the first stage clearly modeled after SpaceX's Superheavy booster. Because the available image is presented in a horizontal orientation, it's not possible to accurately count the number of engines mounted at the base. The upper stage continues this pattern, closely resembling Starship itself, featuring a smooth bullet-like shape along with both forward and aft aerodynamic flaps. There are, however, several notable differences when compared directly to SpaceX's Starship. Most significantly, there is no visible interstage ring between the two stages, and there's no indication that hot staging is being used. In addition, the upper stage does not appear to be equipped with a heat shield, which raises important questions about its re-entry and reuse strategy. To better understand how this vehicle is intended to operate, we can examine the diagram released by the company. In this illustration, Beijing leading rocket technology directly uses an image of SpaceX's Starship sitting on its launch tower to represent the full stack configuration of Zingha 1. According to the diagram, the rocket launches as a complete system before stage separation occurs. After separation, the booster performs a flip maneuver and returns for a landing on a drone ship. Meanwhile, the upper stage continues its ascent and proceeds with payload deployment. The upper stage features a dark door-like section that replaces a traditional separating payload fairing. It opens to deploy the payload, then closes, allowing the stage to re-enter the atmosphere and land on a drone ship for recovery. The company has also introduced what it describes as a new technological approach referred to as an intelligent grid recovery system combined with a fully reusable AI powered rocket. According to Beijing leading rocket technology, which I will refer to from now on as Blurt, this concept is intended to help the company remain competitive as launch rates increase and market prices continue to decline. The company says its intelligent grit recovery system addresses the drawbacks of traditional landing legs and vertical recovery which require complex mechanisms, higher costs, greater landing risk, and strict site constraints. The new approach is intended to simplify vehicle design, reduce mass and manufacturing costs, and enable safer, more flexible recoveries. At the same time, the company is developing AIdriven systems such as digital twins, intelligent controls, reusable health monitoring, and rapid testing and maintenance frameworks. The goal is to shorten flight to reflight cycles, increase reuse rates, and improve reliability. Working alongside intelligent recovery systems to further reduce launch costs with this combination of SpaceX inspired design and newly proposed technologies, Zingha 1 or Starship 1 is expected to support a wide range of launch missions. The company says the rocket will support large, medium, and small satellite missions with two primary configurations planned to provide that flexibility. The basic version is intended for medium and small satellite launches. It's projected to deliver up to three and a half tons to a sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of 500 km. The company claims this version will replace costly solid fueled launch vehicles with a target price of less than 7,000 yuan or under $1,000 per kilogram. The more advanced configuration known as CBC Heavy is designed for deploying satellite constellations. It's expected to place up to 7.1 tons into sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of 700 km. As for the timeline, Blert plans to conduct its first launch in 2027, followed by a gradual roll out of commercial launch services. So, what do you think of this highly derivative rocket design? Do you believe this copycat approach can succeed, or will it fall short of its ambitions? Let me know with a yes or a no in the comments section down below. And don't forget to like the video and subscribe to the channel to continue following SpaceX's ongoing development journey. From my perspective, the outcome remains deeply uncertain, largely because there are several serious technical and operational issues that cannot be ignored. To begin with, the operational diagram released by Blert shows that the company intends to recover its rocket by landing it on a drone ship. However, it doesn't appear to be equipped with traditional landing legs. So, how would the rocket remain stable once it touches down on a moving platform at sea? Would the company rely on an external support structure, a temporary platform, or even a crane system to secure the vehicle after landing? Even SpaceX itself has not yet demonstrated routine success with this approach despite years of testing and iteration. The second major concern involves thermal protection. The vehicle, as presented, does not appear to include a heat shield, which is a critical emission for any rocket that is intended to survive atmospheric re-entry. Need I explain why? The third issue relates to staging. The rocket does not appear to use a hot staging ring between the booster and the upper stage. This could create serious challenges during stage separation and engine ignition. Similar problems were observed during SpaceX's first integrated Starship flight when interactions between exhaust gases, structural components, and engine hardware caused damage. Beyond what's visible in public materials, there may also be internal challenges involving propulsion reliability, structural margins, guidance systems, and manufacturing quality. Despite these obstacles, China has not abandoned its ambition to replicate SpaceX's approach. And in many cases, it's doing so openly rather than discreetly. One particularly direct example emerged earlier this year from a company known as Yushi Space Aerospace Technology or Beijing Yushi Space. This startup was founded in 2024 and entered the commercial launch market with an unusually bold strategy. From the outset, BYS made it clear that it was directly targeting Starship. According to disclosed information, the company plans to develop a stainless steel rocket powered by Methyloxx propellant. The vehicle is called AS1. For recovery, it's designed to use a robotic arm capture system, which we all know by chopsticks. These choices are immediately recognizable as they represent some of the most distinctive and unconventional features of SpaceX's Starship program. And unlike other firms that quietly adopt similar designs, BYS has openly stated that it is fully aligning its technical approach with SpaceX. This level of transparency leaves little doubt about the source of its inspiration. So, how is BY attempting to turn this ambition into reality? In a mid-year update, the company reportedly raised approximately 13.9 million US to fund development of the new rocket. Leaked images show early hardware that appears relatively basic. One image reveals a stainless steel propellant tank with a company tank with the company's name printed across the top. Another shows stainless steel rings being manufactured along with launch infrastructure that closely resembles SpaceX's Starship launch platforms. In terms of scale, the AS1 rocket is noticeably is notably smaller than Starship. It's expected to have a diameter of 4.2 m, which is less than half that of Starship. Its height, however, is projected to be around 70 meters, which places it closer to Falcon 9 in overall size. The rocket is expected to generate a total thrust of 570 tons at liftoff. For propulsion, AS1 will reportedly use Long Yun engines, each producing about 80 tons of thrust. This implies a booster configuration with seven engines. This implies a booster configuration with seven engines. The Long Yin engine is manufactured by Gujo Cloud Arrow, a company that has already drawn attention for producing a close copy of SpaceX's Raptor 3 engine known as the FY100. With these dimensions and capabilities, BOIS claims that AS1 will be able to deliver up to 15 tons to orbit with a recovery payload capacity of around 10 tons. In terms of pricing, the company is targeting a launch cost of roughly $2,800. If the rocket is successfully recovered and reused, that cost could drop to approximately $1,400 per kilo. Looking ahead, BYS has outlined three primary development priorities. These include testing the two-stage rocket assembly, conducting static fire tests, and validating the robotic arm capture system. According to the company, these steps are intended to confirm the feasibility of the technology, and guide future design iterations. BYS is not alone in this trend. Jujo Cloud Arrows FY100 engine represents one of the most complete copies of the Raptor 3 to date. Earlier, Cosmolite became the first company to replicate SpaceX's Starship style launch system with its Leap rocket, which blends elements of both Starship and Falcon 9. Landspace followed a similar path, evolving from solid fuel rockets to the methylox powered Zuchi 2 and eventually to the reusable XU 3, which also reflects a hybrid of SpaceX design philosophies. Whether quietly or openly, cautiously, or aggressively, Chinese aerospace companies continue to model their ambitions on SpaceX. At this point, they're not even hiding it anymore. With the Falcon family, SpaceX continues to set new records in launch cadence, landing reliability, and rapid reuse. Falcon rockets have demonstrated their leadership through a steadily growing list of achievements over many years, and that dominance is not showing signs of slowing down. If there is any rocket capable of surpassing the Falcon series, it can only be Starship. After more than 2 years of intensive testing across multiple vehicle configurations, Starship has already achieved several remarkable milestones. These include successfully catching Superheavy boosters using the Mechazilla arms and demonstrating controlled landings of both stages in the ocean. Building on this foundation, SpaceX is now targeting the Starship V3 configuration as early as next year. The goals for this phase include reaching orbit, deploying payloads, and recovering both stages using the Chopstick's capture system. Beyond that, SpaceX plans to develop a full inorbit refueling architecture, which is a critical step towards sustained operations beyond Earth orbit. As development continues, Starship itself is undergoing constant evolution. Its already enormous scale is expected to increase further with a potential V4 reaching closer close to 150 m in height. At the same time, propulsion capability will expand significantly. The introduction of the Raptor 4 engine could give Starship a total thrust exceeding 10,000 tons at liftoff. Even a technically competent copy would struggle to compete with the pace, scale, and integrated vision of SpaceX's program. For this reason, the challenge facing SpaceX is no longer limited to traditional competitors. Instead, it's now confronted by an unusual phenomenon, which is the emergence of direct replicas of its own rockets. These copycat programs still face numerous technical, operational, and organizational hurdles before they can seriously enter the global launch market. Ultimately, the true outcome will only become clear with time. The coming years will provide the definitive answer. Until then, we can only watch and wait. In any case, folks, this has been Kevin with Great SpaceX. Don't forget to like the video and subscribe if you haven't already to stay up to date with yours truly on 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