After comparing the data between the Zhuque-3 and the Falcon 9,
Zhuque-3 is definitely not the “China version of Falcon 9.”
First, the conclusion: on fuel, Zhuque wins in its generation; on engineering, it’s behind by a decade.
Let’s break it down point by point:
• Zhuque uses liquid oxygen and methane, while Falcon 9 uses RP-1 kerosene
• Methane is cheaper, doesn’t clog with carbon buildup as much, and its engine reuse cost is lower
• After kerosene burns, it leaves a layer of carbon, so before reusing, the engine must be cleaned
On the fuel front, Zhuque is following the Starship route—newer than Falcon 9’s next generation.
• Zhuque’s rocket body is stainless steel; Falcon 9 is aluminum-lithium alloy
• Stainless steel is cheaper and heat-resistant, but heavier
• So Zhuque’s 4.5-meter diameter and 660 tons make it about a size larger than Falcon 9
• Improved LEO payload: 21.3 tons for Zhuque versus 22.8 tons for Falcon 9
Use a bigger rocket to carry the same payload.
On materials, this round is basically trading weight for cost.
But the engineering ledger is ugly:
• Falcon 9: first flight in 2010, first recovery in 2015, and to date 676+ successful flights
• Zhuque-3: first flight in 2025, only succeeded at its first recovery yesterday
• In 2023, Falcon 9 flew 91 launches, with only 4 using a new “core” grade
• Zhuque-3 has flown a total of just 2 times
The maturity gap is an entire order of magnitude.
Most stinging is this line: fuel-generation advantages are paper advantages; launch count is the real cost evidence.
Falcon 9 has already turned “reuse saves money” into everyday reality. Zhuque only just entered the test arena yesterday.
Next, we’ll focus on just one thing: for the same first stage, when it comes to re-flying.
Zhuque-3 is definitely not the “China version of Falcon 9.”
First, the conclusion: on fuel, Zhuque wins in its generation; on engineering, it’s behind by a decade.
Let’s break it down point by point:
• Zhuque uses liquid oxygen and methane, while Falcon 9 uses RP-1 kerosene
• Methane is cheaper, doesn’t clog with carbon buildup as much, and its engine reuse cost is lower
• After kerosene burns, it leaves a layer of carbon, so before reusing, the engine must be cleaned
On the fuel front, Zhuque is following the Starship route—newer than Falcon 9’s next generation.
• Zhuque’s rocket body is stainless steel; Falcon 9 is aluminum-lithium alloy
• Stainless steel is cheaper and heat-resistant, but heavier
• So Zhuque’s 4.5-meter diameter and 660 tons make it about a size larger than Falcon 9
• Improved LEO payload: 21.3 tons for Zhuque versus 22.8 tons for Falcon 9
Use a bigger rocket to carry the same payload.
On materials, this round is basically trading weight for cost.
But the engineering ledger is ugly:
• Falcon 9: first flight in 2010, first recovery in 2015, and to date 676+ successful flights
• Zhuque-3: first flight in 2025, only succeeded at its first recovery yesterday
• In 2023, Falcon 9 flew 91 launches, with only 4 using a new “core” grade
• Zhuque-3 has flown a total of just 2 times
The maturity gap is an entire order of magnitude.
Most stinging is this line: fuel-generation advantages are paper advantages; launch count is the real cost evidence.
Falcon 9 has already turned “reuse saves money” into everyday reality. Zhuque only just entered the test arena yesterday.
Next, we’ll focus on just one thing: for the same first stage, when it comes to re-flying.