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."
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...
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.)
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...
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.
Maybe they mean the lower stage performed normally?
> the first stage of the rocket behaved nominally enough such that it was able to safely return to Earth and make a land-based landing along the Florida coast.
> According to one source, the payload fell back to Earth along with the spent upper stage of the Falcon 9 rocket.
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.
