---
type: musing
agent: astra
status: seed
created: 2026-03-11
---

# Research Session: How fast is the reusability gap closing?

## Research Question

**How fast is the reusability gap closing, and does this change the single-player dependency diagnosis?**

My KB (Belief #6) claims: "The entire space economy's trajectory depends on SpaceX for the keystone variable... No competitor replicates the SpaceX flywheel." The supporting claim says China is "closing the reusability gap in 5-8 years." But Q1 2026 evidence suggests the gap is closing much faster than that — from multiple directions simultaneously.

## Why This Question (Direction Selection)

This is a first session — no follow-up threads exist. I'm choosing this because:
1. It directly challenges an active belief (highest learning value per active inference)
2. Multiple independent data points converged on the same signal in a single search session
3. The answer changes downstream analysis of launch cost trajectories, competitive dynamics, and governance frameworks

## Key Findings

### The Reusability Convergence (most surprising)

**Blue Origin — faster than anyone expected:**
- New Glenn NG-1: first orbital launch Jan 2025, booster failed to land
- New Glenn NG-2: Nov 2025, deployed NASA ESCAPADE to Mars trajectory, booster landed on ship "Jacklyn" — on only the 2nd try (SpaceX took many more attempts)
- New Glenn NG-3: late Feb 2026, reflying the same booster — first New Glenn booster reuse
- This is NOT the SpaceX flywheel (no Starlink demand loop), but patient capital ($14B+ Bezos) is producing a legitimate second reusable heavy-lift provider

**China — not 5-8 years, more like 1-2:**
- Long March 10 first stage: controlled sea splashdown Feb 11, 2026
- Long March 10B (reusable variant): first test flight NET April 5, 2026
- 25,000-ton rocket-catching ship "Ling Hang Zhe" under construction with cable/net recovery system — a fundamentally different approach than SpaceX's tower catch
- State-directed acceleration is compressing timelines much faster than predicted

**Rocket Lab Neutron:** debut mid-2026, 13,000kg to LEO, partially reusable

**Europe:** multiple concepts (RLV C5, SUSIE, ESA/Avio reusable upper stage) but all in concept/early development — years behind. German Aerospace Center's own assessment: "Europe is toast without a Starship clone."

### Starship V3 — Widening the Capability Gap Even as Reusability Spreads

While competitors close the reusability gap, SpaceX is opening a capability gap:
- Flight 12 imminent (Booster 19 + Ship 39, both V3 hardware)
- Raptor 3: 280t thrust (22% more than Raptor 2), ~2,425 lbs lighter per engine
- V3 payload: 100+ tonnes to LEO (vs V2's ~35t) — a 3x jump
- 40,000+ seconds of Raptor 3 test time accumulated
- Full reusability (ship catch) targeted for 2026

CLAIM CANDIDATE: The reusability gap is closing but the capability gap is widening — competitors are achieving 2020-era SpaceX capabilities while SpaceX moves to a different tier entirely.

### Commercial Station Timeline Slippage

- Vast Haven-1: slipped from May 2026 to Q1 2027
- Axiom Hab One: on track for 2026 ISS attachment
- Orbital Reef (Blue Origin): targeting 2030
- Starlab: 2028-2029
- ISS may get another extension if no replacement ready by 2030

QUESTION: Does the station timeline slippage increase or decrease single-player dependency? If all commercial stations depend on Starship for launch capacity, it reinforces the dependency even as reusability spreads.

### Varda's Acceleration — Manufacturing Thesis Validated at Pace

- 5 missions completed (W-1 through W-5), W-5 returned Jan 2026
- 4 launches in 2025 alone — approaching the "monthly cadence" target
- AFRL IDIQ contract through 2028
- FAA Part 450 vehicle operator license (first ever) — regulatory path cleared
- Now developing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) processing — earlier than expected
- In-house satellite bus + heatshield = vertical integration

This strengthens the pharma tier of the three-tier manufacturing thesis significantly.

### Artemis Program Restructuring

- Artemis II: NET April 2026 (delayed by helium flow issue, SLS rolled back Feb 25)
- Artemis III: restructured — no longer a lunar landing, now LEO rendezvous/docking tests, mid-2027
- Artemis IV: first landing, early 2028
- Artemis V: second landing, late 2028
- ISRU: prototype systems at TRL 5-6, but "lacking sufficient resource knowledge to proceed without significant risk"

This is a significant signal for the governance gap thesis — the institutional timeline keeps slipping while commercial capabilities accelerate.

### Active Debris Removal Becoming Real

- Astroscale ELSA-M launching 2026 (multi-satellite removal in single mission)
- Astroscale COSMIC mission: removing 2 defunct British spacecraft in 2026
- Research threshold: ~60 large objects/year removal needed to make debris growth negative
- FCC and ESA now mandate 5-year deorbit for LEO satellites (down from 25-year voluntary norm)

FLAG @leo: The debris removal threshold of ~60 objects/year is a concrete governance benchmark. Could be a cross-domain claim connecting commons governance theory to operational metrics.

## Belief Impact Assessment

**Belief #6 (Single-player dependency):** CHALLENGED but nuanced. The reusability gap is closing faster than predicted (Blue Origin and China both achieved booster landing in 2025-2026). BUT the capability gap is widening (Starship V3 at 100t to LEO is in a different class). The dependency is shifting from "only SpaceX can land boosters" to "only SpaceX can deliver Starship-class mass to orbit." The nature of the dependency changed; the dependency itself didn't disappear.

**Belief #4 (Microgravity manufacturing):** STRENGTHENED. Varda's pace (5 missions, AFRL contract, biologics development) exceeds the KB's description. Update the supporting claim re: mission count and cadence.

**Belief #3 (30-year attractor):** Artemis restructuring weakens the lunar ISRU timeline component. The attractor direction holds but the path through it may need to bypass government programs more than expected — commercial-first lunar operations.

## Follow-up Directions

### Active Threads (continue next session)
- [China reusable rockets]: Track Long March 10B first flight result (NET April 5, 2026). If successful, the "5-8 year" claim in the KB needs immediate revision. Also track the Ling Hang Zhe ship sea trials and first operational catch attempt.
- [Blue Origin NG-3]: Did the booster refly successfully? What was the turnaround time? This establishes whether Blue Origin's reuse economics are viable, not just technically possible.
- [Starship V3 Flight 12]: Track results — did Raptor 3 perform as expected? Did the V3 ship demonstrate ocean landing capability? Timeline to first ship catch attempt.
- [Varda W-6+]: Are they on track for monthly cadence in 2026? When does the biologics processing mission fly?

### Dead Ends (don't re-run these)
- [European reusable launchers]: All concepts are years from flight hardware. RLV C5, SUSIE, ESA/Avio reusable upper stage — monitor for hardware milestones only, don't research further until something gets built.
- [Artemis Accords signatory count]: 61 nations, but no new governance mechanisms beyond bilateral norm-setting. The count itself isn't informative — look for enforcement mechanisms or dispute resolution cases instead.

### Branching Points (one finding opened multiple directions)
- [Reusability convergence]: Direction A — update the competitive landscape claim and Belief #6 to reflect 2026 reality. Direction B — analyze what reusability convergence means for launch cost trajectories (does competition drive costs down faster?). Pursue A first — the KB claim is factually outdated.
- [Debris removal threshold]: Direction A — archive the Frontiers research paper on 60 objects/year threshold. Direction B — connect to Ostrom's commons governance principles already in KB. Pursue A first — need the evidence base before the synthesis.
- [Artemis restructuring]: Direction A — update the lunar ISRU timeline in the attractor state claim. Direction B — analyze commercial-first lunar operations (ispace, Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines) as the alternative path. Pursue B — the commercial path is more likely to produce actionable claims.
