Zuma Satellite Reportedly Destroyed Following Sunday’s Launch By SpaceX

A satellite launched Sunday by SpaceX as part of a classified government mission reportedly failed to reach orbit and was destroyed, according the Wall Street Journal and Reuters.

The satellite, named Zuma, was built by Northrop Grumman Corp. and reportedly cost billions. Officials told Reuters that the satellite is a total loss, likely to have broken apart or crashed into the sea. SpaceX, however, says its own equipment didn’t fail.

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwellafter issued a statement Tuesday saying “after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible. Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule.”

Northrop Grumman has declined to comment on the launch. So, details of the mission remain murky and likely won’t be cleared up until the mission is declassified.

Zuma was SpaceX’s first mission of 2018. You can watch SpaceX’s webcast of the mission here.

 

[Chaserr]

This isn't the first spy satellite that was "destroyed" after successful deployment. It's pretty much the standard lie; satellite watchers do their best to track a new satellite's orbit and this is just the way these birds are disavowed publicly.

 

[Jeff Hudson]

This isn't the first spy satellite that was "destroyed" after successful deployment. It's pretty much the standard lie; satellite watchers do their best to track a new satellite's orbit and this is just the way these birds are disavowed publicly.

That sounds like a reasonable explanation.

 

[arnis]

It isn't credible that a satellite just disappears. SpaceX has (or had) video about deployment.
With all the data how fast it was moving, trajectory, etc.
We can track space debris that is very tiny. It's not credible that we can't track a huge satellite.

If you want to say "it is classified" then say it. No need to lie "it was destroyed and we don't know anything". It's just funny

 

[JonathanD]

It absolutely reached orbit as described in the analysis linked below:

SatTrackCam Leiden (b)log: Fuel dump of Zuma's Falcon 9 Upper Stage observed by a Dutch pilot over east Africa (and rumours that Zuma failed)

Now, whether it successfully detached from Stage 2 before it de-orbited itself is a different question. But it was in orbit.

 

[trace]

I suppose we will see if SpaceX delays their next 52 missions to "review" data.

 

[SO16]

I suppose we will see if SpaceX delays their next 52 missions to "review" data.

So far they are not adjusting their schedule. Per Gwen Shotwell: “Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule.”

 

[Olds442]

of course it was a "failure". nothing to see here.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

SpaceX checked the logs and of course found that the crash was the driver's fault... Oh, sorry, wrong company!

 

[Petra]

From what I've been reading, the customer provided their own payload adapter which means that a failure to separate wouldn't really be SpaceX's fault.

 

[Grendal]

So even TMC is posting misinformation against one of Elon's companies?
Statement From Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX on Zuma Launch

The following statement is from Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX:

“For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible.

“Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule. Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks.”

 

[GoTslaGo]

More info from Teslarati:

SpaceX President breaks silence on rumored Zuma mission failure

Specifically:

Twitter

To quote the Teslarati article:

Further complicating claims that the satellite failed to separate, Northrop Grumman had explicitly required that they be allowed to furnish the payload adapter for the Zuma mission, meaning that SpaceX was not responsible for connecting the satellite to the second stage, nor separating it after launch. In other words, if the satellite failed to separate, it would appear that SpaceX could not be easily blamed. However, regardless of these facts, SpaceX’s COO Gwynne Shotwell issued a thoroughly blunt and explicit statement earlier this morning, January 9. In no simple terms, she pegged rumors implicating SpaceX as the source of failure as “categorically false.”

End quote.

 

[Bobfitz1]

The following statement is from Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX:

“For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible.
“Since the data reviewed so far indicates that no design, operational or other changes are needed, we do not anticipate any impact on the upcoming launch schedule. Falcon Heavy has been rolled out to launchpad LC-39A for a static fire later this week, to be followed shortly thereafter by its maiden flight. We are also preparing for an F9 launch for SES and the Luxembourg Government from SLC-40 in three weeks.”

Have to love Gwynne's way of drawing a line in the sand and then poking her stick in eye of the aerospace old school!

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible.

Is it just me or are these last three sentences at odds with each other...?

1) Falcon did right.

2) They or others will tell us if they find otherwise.

3) But any info contrary to "Falcon is right" is categorically false.

4) And due the classified nature, no further comment is possible anyway.

So, basically, Falcon did right. Right?

 

[Yuri_G]

Is it just me or are these last three sentences at odds with each other...?

1) Falcon did right.

2) They or others will tell us if they find otherwise.

3) But any info contrary to "Falcon is right" is categorically false.

4) And due the classified nature, no further comment is possible anyway.

So, basically, Falcon did right. Right?

No, she's stating that both stages performed nominally on SpaceX's side. Any questions about the payload adapter and Northrop Grumman's satellite cannot be fielded by SpaceX given the classified nature of the satellite. Not difficult to understand.

 

[Grendal]

Is it just me or are these last three sentences at odds with each other...?

1) Falcon did right.

2) They or others will tell us if they find otherwise.

3) But any info contrary to "Falcon is right" is categorically false.

4) And due the classified nature, no further comment is possible anyway.

So, basically, Falcon did right. Right?

Gwynne is essentially saying that SpaceX did exactly what they were paid to do. Which includes releasing the payload in the proper orbit. Since the details are classified, she cannot say that the articles that say the payload went down with the second stage are false. That was misinformation created by someone for their own agenda that has nothing to do with what actually happened. There is evidence that shows everything went as planned. SpaceX is saying everything went as planned. The payload has likely failed but there is no official confirmation that is even true.

The Teslarati article in post #12 does a fantastic job of collating all known information and debunks the false information brought out in one or two articles then copied by twenty or so others using those articles as reference.

 

[davecolene0606]

Then they attack you...

Then you win.

Fire Away

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@Yuri @Grendal Oh I do get the basis on which SpaceX made the claim that their part worked. It is definitely plausible too. That wasn't at question.

I repeat my question: Read these sentences again, doesn't anyone else see them as contradicting each other?

"Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible."

First they say that if this info is wrong, they'll report it.

Then they say any info contrary to this claim is categorically false.

Then they basically say they can't report anything further anyway.

Just was curious from a comms success perspective. It seemed to me unsuccessful choice of words.

 

[skitown]

@Yuri @Grendal Oh I do get the basis on which SpaceX made the claim that their part worked. It is definitely plausible too. That wasn't at question.

I repeat my question: Read these sentences again, doesn't anyone else see them as contradicting each other?

"Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night. If we or others find otherwise based on further review, we will report it immediately. Information published that is contrary to this statement is categorically false. Due to the classified nature of the payload, no further comment is possible."

First they say that if this info is wrong, they'll report it.

Then they say any info contrary to this claim is categorically false.

Then they basically say they can't report anything further anyway.

Just was curious from a comms success perspective. It seemed to me unsuccessful choice of words.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I guess my minute interests in comms nuances aren't shared by the teslarati here.