SpaceX IPO Sparks Debate as Chinese State Media Claims 'No Need to Copy'

U.S. space technology company SpaceX went public on the 12th, drawing significant attention from Chinese netizens. On the 13th, China's state media published an interview with a Chinese aerospace expert, stating that "China does not need and cannot replicate SpaceX," while asserting China has the chance to leapfrog, sparking widespread discussion. Some Chinese netizens believe the article aims to downplay SpaceX's success, while others mocked, "China doesn't need nor can enter the World Cup."

The WeChat public account "Chang'an Street Insider," affiliated with Beijing Daily—the official newspaper of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China—published an article on the 13th titled "China Does Not Need Nor Can Replicate SpaceX," featuring an interview with Shen Yingchun, a professor at Beihang University, covering the above points.

The article begins by asking: "Why does the U.S. capital market dare to assign such an astonishing valuation to SpaceX? How large is the current gap between China and the U.S. in the commercial space sector? What should China be most concerned about, and what should it not worry about? Is it necessary for China to replicate SpaceX's success? What are China's unique advantages?"

Shen Yingchun claims that over the past decade, China's commercial space industry has "completed in ten years what took foreign countries decades," now firmly ranking second globally. However, to achieve future leadership, China must continue to break through in cost reduction, efficiency, commercial ecosystems, and "international discourse power."

He also acknowledges that the gap between China and the U.S. in the commercial space sector is objectively structural, primarily in launch capability and cost control. He says China's current biggest aerospace flaw is "many satellites, few rockets" (star-rich, rocket-poor), with reusable rocket technology and downstream commercial applications still needing further maturation.

Shen states that China's model advantages lie in strong industrial manufacturing capacity and the ability of "the government to set the stage, enterprises to perform." Another advantage is scale—using national will to concentrate resources and systematically address infrastructure, standard setting, and risk sharing. In contrast, the U.S. model excels in efficiency, using market mechanisms to drive innovation and cost reduction in enterprises and institutions.

He emphasizes that the Chinese and U.S. models are not about "which is more advanced," but "which is more suitable." In terms of development path, "China does not need nor can replicate SpaceX."

Shen claims China has the opportunity to "leapfrog." Future large-scale applications of China's "integrated air-space-ground network" in smart cities, low-altitude economy, and emergency disaster reduction will provide unique scenarios no foreign system can offer.

Reactions among Chinese netizens are divided. Some say, "This kind of technology (aerospace) is better kept under state control; private enterprises should stay away," or "Isn't the harm of capital enough already?" Others directly say, "Yes, no need." But immediately, others retort, "By the same logic, China doesn't need nor can enter the World Cup," or "The soil is different—how can you replicate it?"

Some netizens frankly state, "When can we openly admit others are better than us? Only then do we have more hope," or "No need to be sour or boastful—admitting the gap isn't shameful." Others say, "This article is clearly sour—basically, we just can't make it," or "an article meant to cool down the hype." Some question, "I believe we can't copy it, but do we really not need it?"

Others point out that in China's environment, "if a super-capitalist like Elon Musk emerged, he'd face even more criticism." Some directly say, "China needs SpaceX's team spirit, bold hypotheses, and bold experimentation." (Edited by Qiu Guoqiang / Zhang Zhixuan)