[QUOTE=only_human;477033]The payload though might be lost.[/QUOTE]
This seems like deliberate obfuscation. Could Bloomberg and WSJ be conduits for disinformation?
[url]https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16866806/spacex-zuma-mission-failure-northrop-grumman-classified-falcon-9-rocket[/url]

[QUOTE=kladner;477065]This seems like deliberate obfuscation. Could Bloomberg and WSJ be conduits for disinformation?
[url]https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16866806/spacex-zuma-mission-failure-northrop-grumman-classified-falcon-9-rocket[/url][/QUOTE]

I like the summation in that article but don't have a favorite conclusion. The only additional info I would add is just a little more detail from Jonathan McDowell in this other article:
[URL="https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/where-is-zuma/"]WHERE IS ZUMA?[/URL]

Whatever the conclusion, the water is nice and muddy, now.

[QUOTE=kladner;477065]This seems like deliberate obfuscation. Could Bloomberg and WSJ be conduits for disinformation?[/QUOTE]

I couldn't find the article at the moment (was reading it late last night on my phone when I couldn't sleep), but it turns out that Zuma (now designated USA 280) was inserted into almost the exact same orbital plane as another NRO spy satellite, USA 276, that SpaceX launched in 2017.

The speculation is that USA 280 is either an experimental refuelling ship, or else (more likely) USA 280 and USA 276 are going to quickly swap positions, with USA 276 quietly de-orbiting.

This:[QUOTE]This morning, SpaceX’s president and COO Gwynne Shotwell doubled down on SpaceX’s original statement. “For clarity: after review of all data to date, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night,” she said. “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.”[/QUOTE]
and this:[QUOTE]Meanwhile, SpaceX is pretty pleased with the launch. The company has been tweeting pictures from the mission, indicating that all went well. Plus, SpaceX rolled out its new Falcon Heavy rocket to its primary launchpad for an upcoming test, which probably wouldn’t have happened if there was a major issue with the company’s rocket hardware.[/QUOTE]
lead me to believe that the failure was after the payload separation.

Such stories aren't a cover-up, because any actual satellite would be visible to any sort of military radar as well as amateur/public satellite trackers.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;477074]This:
and this:
lead me to believe that the failure was after the payload separation.[/QUOTE]

Well SpaceX doesn't seem to be manifesting the cringing behavior of an ashamed pet but since they weren't responsible for payload separation on this mission it's hard to judge from their demeanor if payload separation occurred.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;477078]Such stories aren't a cover-up, because any actual satellite would be visible to any sort of military radar as well as amateur/public satellite trackers.[/QUOTE]

What if this is an experiment of orbital stealth technology?

'Conspiracizing' freely, perhaps the U.S.'s latest spy-sat launch ran into another country's nearby [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome]Kessler syndrome[/url] experiment? The earth-orbit analog of a suicide vest ... I wonder what kind of dispersive payload would work best in practice - sand, bird shot, or something larger like ball bearings?

[QUOTE]sand, bird shot, or something larger like ball bearings[/QUOTE]
All depends on relative velocities between the impactor and impactee, doesn't it?

Politics in the after action reaction. (Bloomberg)
[URL="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/lawmakers-look-into-spacex-launch-that-ended-with-lost-satellite"]Lawmakers Look Into SpaceX Launch That Ended With Lost Satellite[/URL]
Soundbites and fury.
[QUOTE]Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who heads the panel that approves appropriations for NASA, said the lost satellite raises new questions about SpaceX contracts. Shelby is a strong supporter of United Launch Alliance, which has operations in his state.

“[B]The record shows they have promise, but they’ve had issues as a vendor,” Shelby said Wednesday, referring to SpaceX. “United Launch, knock on wood, they’ve had an outstanding record.[/B]”

United Launch Alliance was the sole provider for the Pentagon until Musk began a campaign in Congress and the courts challenging what he called an unfair monopoly. After an extensive Air Force review, SpaceX was certified in 2015 to compete for military launches.[/QUOTE]

Here is an older soundbite from Shelby:
[URL="https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/nasa-inspector-questions-why-agency-built-rocket-test-stands-in-alabama/"]NASA inspector questions why agency built rocket test stands in Alabama[/URL]
[QUOTE]Finally, the inspector general's report notes that building the test stands at Stennis made more sense from a geographical standpoint. After the fuel tanks are built at Michoud Assembly Facility in southeastern Louisiana, they must be shipped by barge to the test stands. Stennis is only about 40 miles away, whereas Marshall lies 1,240 miles away and requires navigating the Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee rivers. Shipping a single tank from Michoud to Marshall takes about two weeks and $500,000. Sending tanks to Stennis requires less than a week and only $200,000.

The loss of a few tens of millions of federal dollars might not be much of a story but for the fact that critics have assailed NASA's rocket program as a political beast, designed to maximize jobs in the districts of key US senators and representatives. Indeed, among the most vocal of SLS proponents has been US Senator Richard Shelby. The Alabama Republican proclaimed in 2011 that “[B]The ability of NASA to achieve our goals for future space exploration has always been and always will be through Marshall Space Flight Center[/B]."

He got his wish with the SLS fuel tanks.[/QUOTE]