
Sources say the secretive Zuma satellite was lost by SpaceX - kanamekun
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/the-zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-may-be-lost-sources-tell-ars/
======
whoisjuan
Maybe saying that the payload was lost, it's part of their plan to keep
whatever was launched as secret and confidential as possible.

~~~
xbmcuser
That was my thought exactly spread misinformation that the satellite/payload
crashed and in a couple of years people will forget.

------
duiker101
So a secretive thing launched in space now suddenly disappears? I don't know
but to me seems like a pretty normal way of saying "stop looking this way or
asking questions."

------
Alain-lf
> Sources say the secretive Zuma satellite was lost by SpaceX

> As of right now reviews of the data indicate Falcon 9 performed nominally

Headline is in complete contradiction with the content of the article.

~~~
333c
The rocket performed nominally… The payload, maybe not.

~~~
Alain-lf
I understand that, but it's not Spacex that lost the payload.

------
SAI_Peregrinus
No info, and no reliable (identified) sources cited. Photos of the launch show
the second stage burned as normal, so that seems to indicate that the launcher
wasn't a major issue. And the second stage de-orbit burn was also
photographed, and looked like all the others I've seen. Separation of Zuma
from the second stage could have been a problem, of course, or there could
have been an issue with Zuma itself.

Satellites tend to be reflective due to their use of solar panels, and amateur
astronomers track just about everything people launch. Heavens-above's track
data[1] doesn't get filled in it either failed or is very low-observability
and using an RTG or similar instead of solar power. It's also possible that
the payload is in orbit, but couldn't get to the correct orbit, in which case
track data will get filled in but the satellite still will have failed...

[1] [http://heavens-
above.com/SatInfo.aspx?satid=43098&lat=0&lng=...](http://heavens-
above.com/SatInfo.aspx?satid=43098&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT)

------
wetpaws
Rrrright. That's what _they_ want you to think.

------
forapurpose
If SpaceX is responsible for any problems, it will look bad for their
reliability. From another article:

> The Zuma mission was originally supposed to launch in mid-November, but
> SpaceX stood down for a while to study data from payload-fairing test
> performed for another customer. (The payload fairing is the protective nose
> cone that encases a spacecraft during launch.)

[https://www.space.com/38826-spacex-launches-secret-zuma-
miss...](https://www.space.com/38826-spacex-launches-secret-zuma-mission-
lands-rocket.html)

------
jballanc
It was awfully cold in Florida for the week or so before launch...rockets
don't seem to like cold.

This has got to be really tough for SpaceX, especially given how accustomed
the become to being as open and forthright with their past failures. Such
openness seems to be key in how such a young rocketry company managed to
secure so much business (well, that and cost and success rate). I suppose this
is just the risk you take when accepting to launch secretive missions...

...still sucks, though.

~~~
FLUX-YOU
Rocket seems fine, sounds like they decided to burn the payload with stage 2
in case of satellite malfunction instead of leave it in space.

------
notacoward
How exactly does likely loss and destruction of payload translate into
"performed nominally"? Is that like "stable genius"?

~~~
vannevar
It's possible that the launch vehicle performed nominally but the payload had
its own propulsion or attitude control, which failed in some manner and
prevented the payload from achieving orbit.

------
api
Title is incorrect and sensational. Sources say the satellite _may_ have
failed or _may_ have issues but it's all classified, and we do not know
whether the problem (if any) was in the launcher or the satellite itself.

It's also not impossible that the USG wants certain parties to think the
satellite failed.

~~~
foobarbecue
No, the title is correct. One of the sources described that the satellite
burned up in the atmosphere. And sure, it could be a smokescreen.

