Behind China’s “Batch Launch” of Commercial Rockets: Up to 6× Cost Gaps — Reusable Technology Is the Key

China commercial rockets are entering a higher‑frequency era of launches while still facing a major capability gap.

Quick take:

China’s commercial launch cadence has accelerated, with private and state‑backed carriers running multiple missions per week.

That activity is real, and it’s impressive.

But beneath the headlines of “batch launches” lie structural limits — most importantly a shortage of high‑capacity, reusable launch vehicles.

Industry executives and analysts say improving reusable‑rocket technology and building mass‑production capacity are the two practical levers to close a cost and capability gap with the U.S.

“Batch launches” are real — but so is the capability gap

In mid‑October a Zhongke Yuhang (zhōngkē yǔháng 中科宇航) Li‑Jian‑1 (力箭一号) solid rocket launched three satellites on a single flight from a commercial launch zone managed by Dongfeng (东风).

Domestic commercial teams completed nine launches in August alone.

Planners have penciled in at least 20 commercial launches for the year.

That’s a clear signal the sector has entered a higher‑frequency phase.

But launch count alone masks deeper limits.

Several industry leaders say the primary bottleneck isn’t only high per‑launch cost.

The bigger issue is a shortage of the high‑payload lift capacity needed to build and replenish large low‑Earth orbit (LEO) constellations.

Comparing China and the U.S. on lift capacity shows why.

SpaceX’s Starship (Xīngjiàn 星舰) is expected to offer roughly 150 tonnes to LEO.

China’s largest operational rocket today, Changzheng‑5 (Chángzhēng‑5 长征五号), lifts around 25 tonnes.

That’s roughly a sixfold difference in single‑vehicle payload capacity.

What launch costs look like — with currency conversions

Domestic commercial bids show wide variation.

Zhongke Yuhang currently quotes solid‑rocket launches at about ¥60,000–70,000 RMB ($8,571–$10,000 USD) per kilogram.

Mainstream commercial Chinese launch quotes tend to cluster at ¥50,000–100,000 RMB ($7,143–$14,286 USD) per kilogram.

Some very small rockets or specialized trajectories can charge as much as ¥150,000 RMB ($21,429 USD) per kilogram.

Example: a 500‑kg satellite could therefore face launch costs up to ¥75,000,000 RMB ($10,714,286 USD).

Satellite manufacturing costs for a 500‑kg class satellite have in many cases fallen to about ¥50,000,000–60,000,000 RMB (¥50–60 million RMB ($7,143,000–$8,571,429 USD)).

In some scenarios launch expenses can exceed a satellite’s build cost.

That dynamic is a clear constraint on large‑scale constellation economics.

Public mission data show the range in domestic mission economics.

Changzheng‑3B (Chángzhēng‑3B 长征三号乙) had an average cost of roughly ¥390,000,000 RMB per mission (¥390 million RMB ($55,714,286 USD)) in 2023.

At an estimated 5.5‑ton payload that equals about ¥70,909 RMB per kg (~¥70,900 RMB per kg or $10,129 USD/kg).

Changzheng‑2D (Chángzhēng‑2D 长征二号丁) recent procurement prices were around ¥113,000,000 RMB per mission (¥113 million RMB ($16,142,857 USD)).

For a roughly 4‑ton capability that works out to about ¥28,250 RMB per kg (~¥28,250 RMB/kg or $4,036 USD/kg).

By contrast, industry benchmarks from the U.S. show SpaceX’s Falcon 9 (when operating in a high‑recovery, high‑reuse profile) can push LEO cost to roughly $2,000–$2,500 USD per kg (about ¥14,000–¥17,500 RMB per kg).

Smaller U.S. or niche providers — Rocket Lab, Astra and others — generally charge far more (tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram).

Why reusability matters: engines, first stages and cost amortization

Engine and first‑stage structures account for the largest share of rocket cost.

Industry estimates put first‑stage cost at more than 70% of total vehicle cost in many designs.

That concentration makes first‑stage recovery and reuse the most potent lever for reducing per‑kg launch cost.

Each successful recovery lets manufacturers amortize expensive hardware over many flights.

Liquid‑propellant, vertical‑landing approaches (liquid engines with restart capability and variable thrust; vertical boost‑back and powered descent) offer the best combination of precision, low‑impact recovery and high reuse potential.

That is why global commercial players are focused on liquid‑engine vertical recovery.

Key advantages include:

• High specific impulse from liquid engines.
• Throttleability for trajectory and landing control.
• Ability to concentrate valuable mass in the recoverable stage.

Solid propellant vehicles can implement partial recovery, for example with parachute recovery.

But solid motors cannot throttle or restart.

That causes higher landing loads and more complex refurbishment needs.

Consequently, liquid vertical recovery is the mainstream path to sharply lower LEO cost per kg.

Where Chinese firms stand on reusable liquid boosters

Domestic players — including Aerospace Science and Technology Group’s commercial teams (航天科技 Hángtiān Kējì), Blue Arrow Aerospace (Lánjiàn Hángtiān 蓝箭航天), Xingji Rongyao (Xīngjì Róngyào 星际荣耀), Jianyuan Technology (Jiànyuán Kējì 箭元科技) and Zhongke Yuhang (zhōngkē yǔháng 中科宇航) — have publicly filed and demonstrated different recovery concepts.

Some firms have validated vertical takeoff/vertical landing (VTVL) techniques in scale tests.

Notable progress reported by companies and industry insiders:

• Xingji Rongyao (xīngjì róngyào 星际荣耀) completed a full‑scale VTVL test for a first‑stage prototype and has planned in‑orbit and recovery validations for its dual‑mode reusable vehicle within the coming year.
• Blue Arrow (lánjiàn 蓝箭) has carried out multiple VTVL trials at both hundreds of meters and tens of kilometers, validating guidance, control and thermal processes for recovery.
• Zhongke Yuhang (zhōngkē yǔháng 中科宇航) is planning a first orbital launch of its Li‑Jian‑2 (力箭二号) liquid rocket in Q4 2025.

The initial Li‑Jian‑2 flight will be expendable.

Follow‑on reusable versions intend to use Zhongke Yuhang’s in‑house Li‑Qing‑2 (力擎2号) liquid‑oxygen kerosene engine for recovery operations.

Company roadmaps indicate targets of tens of reuses per booster.

If achieved, per‑kilogram costs for large‑capacity, reusable liquid rockets could fall toward international mainstream low‑cost benchmarks.

For example, Zhongke Yuhang projects reusable Li‑Jian‑2 could reduce costs toward about ¥20,000 RMB ($2,857 USD) per kg with the right reuse and production scale.

Production scale matters as much as technology

Executives emphasize that breakthrough tech demonstrations are necessary but not sufficient.

The other critical step is moving from single prototype flights to industrialized, repeatable mass production.

For constellation operators the limiting resource is not a single large rocket but the rate of delivered mass to orbit.

That rate depends on how many rockets a manufacturer can produce and cycle through reuse.

Some Chinese manufacturers are already planning “superfactories” and higher‑throughput production lines.

Announced capacities include:

• Li‑Jian‑2’s planned factory output of ~20 medium/large liquid rockets per year.
• Xingji Rongyao’s facility designs targeting ~20 Dual‑Curve‑3 (双曲线三号) launches per year.
• Other firms declaring annual output targets in the tens of launches.

Those production targets, if realized and combined with reuse, could materially close the gap in delivered LEO mass for large constellation customers.

Outlook: near‑term steps and medium‑term expectations

Short term (1–2 years): expect an acceleration of flight tests and staged reusable demonstrations.

Industry insiders predict visible progress in domestic liquid‑rocket recovery validation within the next 12–24 months.

That should ease the “too few rockets” bottleneck for some classes of payloads.

Medium term (3–10 years): achieving large‑scale, low‑cost constellation economics will require both high‑reliability reusable vehicles and mass‑production capacity.

Parity with the top global players will be a multi‑vector challenge.

Engines, thermal protection, operations, inspection and refurbishment cycles, and launch cadence operations management all need to mature together.

In short, China’s commercial rocket sector has moved into a higher‑activity phase — “batch launches” are happening.

But closing the capability and cost gap with global leaders demands both reusable technology maturation and industrial scaling.

Those are complementary: reuse lowers per‑flight hardware cost, but only mass production and high flight cadence will translate that technological gain into affordable, routine access to LEO for thousands (and eventually tens of thousands) of satellites.

Key takeaways for investors, founders and operators:

• Launch cadence alone isn’t enough. Capacity per vehicle and delivered mass to LEO matter more for constellation economics.
• Reusability is the highest‑leverage tech. First‑stage reuse targets the single largest cost component of rockets.
• Manufacturing scale is the multiplier. Superfactories and repeatable production turn reusable prototypes into routine access.
• Watch the next 12–24 months. That’s when liquid‑rocket recovery demonstrations should become visible and measurable.

China commercial rockets remain a fast‑moving space to watch as reuse and scale determine who can deliver low‑cost, high‑cadence access to LEO.

References

• 国产商业火箭 “批量上天” 背后：发射成本最高差6倍 复用技术成破局关键 – 东方财富
• Starship (Vehicle) – SpaceX
• Rocket Lab (Company) – Rocket Lab