On the commercial side Blue Origin has been slow in starting but they are almost ready and will have relatively cheap launches. There are other up and coming private launch competitors too.

And {world space launch demand} is >> {one country's space launch demand}

The argument for China overcoming SpaceX would be:

- China needs to get within functional (not cost) technological parity with SpaceX ASAP (i.e. which means reusability, albeit for cadence/capacity reasons)

- After that, they need to incentivize global demand to launch on Chinese rockets (likely heavily subsidizing prices to attract demand)

- After that, they need to continue to out-innovate SpaceX on technological and economic fronts

Of those, convincing a substantial portion of global launch demand to use Chinese rockets seems the trickiest bit, give the CCP's relationship with the rule of law.

They create demand so they can scale manufacturing that they can use to decrease prices that creates more demand... etc. etc.

You can't beat a company doing that by just getting "big enough" unless the scaling company (a) runs out of increased demand or (b) cannot convert increased volume into cheaper economics per unit.

Neither of those seem very plausible.

Expound more on this please assuming I'm a potential Brazilian South African ,Saudi or Thai client .

The American private company might be prohibited from launching military assets for you, but once a launch contract is otherwise signed, you know it's going to happen.

In contrast, a Chinese legal agreement is worth what, if the central government decides to get involved?

[citation needed]

Sure, New Glenn is designed to be a partially reusable rocket.

But it's far from clear that they'll even successfully launch on their debut, not to mention recover the booster.

And even when they've sorted all that out, word on the street is that the rocket was not designed to be inexpensively manufactured. It's not clear to me just now low reuse can help drive down their launch price.

Based on current disclosed plan, they will have same number of LEOs as SpaceX have today by ~2030; and SpaceX is not slowing down either.

By spending more money in absolute terms to achieve objectives, without a necessitative need of immediate profit?

It's vaguely analogous to the early automobile market where Ford was dominating by every single objective metric so competitors were left to compete on subjective metrics like styles. Incidentally this era is where planned obsolescence really took off.

Unfortunately for competitors I'm not sure coating a rocket in a chrome finish and running a sleek ad campaign is going to beat out price+speed+reliability.