Chinese Reusable Booster Explodes During First Orbital Test (cnn.com)
- Reference: 0180274741
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/12/03/1510248/chinese-reusable-booster-explodes-during-first-orbital-test
- Source link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/03/science/zhuque-3-launch-china-reusable-rocket-intl-hnk
> A private Chinese space firm successfully sent its Zhuque-3 rocket to orbit but failed in its historic attempt to re-land the rocket booster Wednesday -- the [2]first such trial by a Chinese firm as the country's growing commercial space sector races to catch up with American rivals like SpaceX. The rocket entered orbit as planned, but its first stage [3]did not successfully return to a landing site , instead crashing down, the company said in a statement.
>
> "An anomaly occurred after the first-stage engine ignited during the landing phase, preventing a soft landing on the designated recovery pad," the statement said. "The debris landed at the edge of the recovery area, resulting in a failed recovery test." The team would "conduct a comprehensive review" and continue to "advance the verification and application of reusable rocket technology in future missions," the statement added.
You can watch a video of the launch and subsequent crash [4]here .
[1] https://slashdot.org/~schwit1
[2] https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/12/03/0457240/landspace-could-become-chinas-first-company-to-land-a-reusable-rocket
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/03/science/zhuque-3-launch-china-reusable-rocket-intl-hnk
[4] https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/03/science/video/china-rocket-crash-zhuque-landspace-vrtc-ldn-digvid
Anomalies are a learning experience (Score:2)
The Chinese learn fast and iterate frequently. Likely their future launches will be more robust.
Re: (Score:2)
> The Chinese learn fast and iterate frequently. Likely their future launches will be more robust.
Yeah, Landing rockets is old hat by now - Indeed, while Spacex is the ones we always think of, New Glenn is a lot better. Hovering, fixing itself to the deck. I have no doubt that the Chinese will succeed in landing their rockets.
New Glenn has one other very important advantage while we are at it. It's ability to hover, and fixing itself to the deck allows for a much expanded launch envelope. Easier to put that barge where you need it. Spacex doesn't seem to care for doing this all that often any more. S
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it must have happened sometime this year, but I don't remember the last time a Falcon 9 booster returned to the launch site. Everything I've seen recently landed on the barge.
New Glenn does have a better launch envelope by being able to hover to land in bad sea conditions, but the extra fuel cuts into the payload more. So there are benefits and costs.
No Such Thing (Score:1)
"A private Chinese space firm..." There is no such thing as a private company in China. At the end of the day, they are all owened by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). With that said, rockets are hard. Reusable ones more so. They will eventually get there.
Re: (Score:2)
> At the end of the day, they are all owened by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Is this some kind of attempt at being clever? It's an outright falsehood.
Is it, "China has laws that can get a corporation in trouble if they don't do what the Government says", ergo private ownership doesn't exist?
If that's the case, I've got some really bad news for you about Western companies.
Wassa matter China? (Score:2)
Havent stolen enough tech to play with the big kids yet?
Re: (Score:2)
> Havent stolen enough tech to play with the big kids yet?
Do you think they's stolen Starship technology?
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese motorcycles you can buy on Amazon are 70 year old Honda technology.
Re: Wassa matter China? (Score:2)
Ask Sandy Burger when he stuffed all those missile secrets down his shorts!
bad headline (Score:2)
the chinese rocket did not explode until it hit the ground
Re: (Score:2)
The booster failed while approaching the landing zone, apparently during its final burn, exploding on impact. The orbiter performed well, reaching its planned orbit successfully.
Re: (Score:2)
According to what I read yesterday, it looks like one engine restarted then something went badly wrong. It would likely have landed or at least hit the landing pad otherwise since it hit the ground not far from the pad.
So they've done the first 80% of the job and now it's a question of how long the remaining 20% takes.
But as you say it did deliver the payload to orbit so the actual launch was a success.
Reusable as what? (Score:2)
Is supposed to be reusable AS a booster?
it's how aerospace engineering works (Score:2)
Lose a rocket, gain a mountain of data. Work on the next rocket. Repeat
Re: (Score:2)
"It's not like SpaceX did not have any missteps on their path to creating reusable boosters."
They weren't really missteps. It was part of their design philosophy. Build it enough to get past a "goal" (say, get past the launch tower) and test. If it doesn't meet the goal, ID the failure, redesign and test again. Once it reaches that "goal", create a new "goal" (sat, reach 20,000 ft). Repeat until it's reliable.
While this involves a lot of explosions, the actual time it takes to get a workable and reliab