News
SpaceX President breaks silence on rumored Zuma mission failure
After some 24 hours of total silence from all parties involved, dubious rumors began to trickle out on the afternoon of January 8 suggesting that SpaceX’s launch of Northrop Grumman’s highly secretive Zuma payload had somehow failed. Without hesitation, otherwise reputable outlets like CNBC and the Wall Street Journal immediately published separate articles claiming that lawmakers had been updated about the mission and told that the satellite had been destroyed while reentering Earth’s atmosphere. Having completely failed to both make it to orbit and “perfectly” separate from SpaceX’s Falcon 9 second stage, these articles implicitly placed the blame on SpaceX.
Claims of Zuma’s failure to properly separate from the second stage of the rocket led immediately to suggestions that SpaceX was at fault. The satellite’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, also refused to comment due to the classified nature of the mission, and the company may well have had their hands tied by requirements of secrecy from their customer(s). Immediately following these quick revelations, SpaceX was understandably bombarded with requests for comment by the media and furnished a response that further acknowledged the off-limits secrecy of the mission. However, SpaceX also stated that the company’s available data showed that Falcon 9 completed the mission without fault.
Falcon 9 1043 and its Zuma payload are ready for launch once again, this time from the brand-new LC-40 pad. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
Without any background knowledge of spaceflight, this flurry of reporting and corporate comments would seem to be perfectly reasonable and unsurprising. However, the barest application of simple logic and orbital mechanics (what is actually involved in launching satellites to orbit) would have almost completely invalidated the information purportedly given to them.
Around the same time as claims of complete failure and satellite reentry were published, amateur spy satellite trackers had already begun the routine task of tracking and cataloging Zuma’s launch and orbit. Following Ars Technica’s breaking (and thankfully even-keeled) article on whispers of failure, reputable journalist Peter B. de Selding corroborated the rumors with reports that Zuma could be dead in orbit after separation from SpaceX’s upper stage. These facts alone ought to have stopped dead any speculation that Zuma had reentered while still attached to the Falcon 9 upper stage, and this was strengthened further by Dr. Marco Langbroek, who later published images provided to him that with very little doubt showed the second stage in a relatively stable orbit similar to the orbit that might be expected after a nominal launch.
This is the image taken by Dutch pilot Peter Horstink, from his aircraft over Khartoum near 3:15 UT, 2h 15m after launch.
This is probably the Falcon 9 venting fuel.#Zuma pic.twitter.com/EEsl7e1sQP— Dr Marco Langbroek (@Marco_Langbroek) January 8, 2018
-->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.” More importantly, she reiterated the simple facts that Falcon Heavy’s static fire and launch campaign were proceeding apace, and further stated that an upcoming launch of a communications satellite for SES and the Luxembourg government was also proceeding nominally for a launch around the end of January.
[Source: Chris G via Twitter]
Quite simply, if SpaceX’s hardware had suffered any form of anomaly, let alone issues serious enough to destroy a customer’s payload, all future launches would be immediately and indefinitely postponed, and all customers would be simultaneously notified of Falcon 9’s grounding. The last thing that a launch company would do in such an event is to allow a respected executive blatantly and publicly lie to the media about a long-time customer’s imminent launch date. For satellite communications companies like SES, delayed launches can cause major problems for shareholders and throw a multitude of wrenches into the fiscal gears, as delayed launches cost money on their own. They also delay the point at which any given satellite can begin to generate revenue.
A composite long exposure showing the launch, landing, and second stage burns during the Zuma mission. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
But wait…
While current information almost unequivocally suggests that SpaceX is in the clear, there has yet to be any official confirmation that the Zuma satellite is in any way dead or has actually failed. This is par for the course of classified government launches, and Zuma’s launch campaign was even more secretive and eccentric than usual – we still have no idea what government agency or agencies are responsible for the mission. And the satellite’s manufacturer was explicitly provided only a few minutes before its launch. Any publication with experience dealing with military topics and news would explicitly understand that any ‘leaked’ information on highly classified topics is inherently untrustworthy and ought to be handled with the utmost rigor and skepticism.
In reality, the most we will ever likely know about these mysterious events will be provided in a handful of weeks by amateur satellite trackers: if they find a new object motionless in the expected orbit, leaks of Zuma’s abject failure will be largely corroborated. If nothing appears in that orbit once the satellite is expected to be visible, it can be reasonably assumed that Zuma reentered the atmosphere at some point, also hinting at a total failure. It can be said with some certainty that if Zuma failed to detach from Falcon 9’s second stage, SpaceX would delay its planned reentry indefinitely until all conceivable attempts to salvage the mission had been analyzed. Observations from pilots and people on the ground suggest without a doubt that the second stage reached a stable orbit, and once in that orbit, reentry could be delayed for weeks or months if the stage was not intentionally deorbited. Dr. Langbroek discusses these possibilities in greater detail in an article posted to his blog.
Ultimately, there are still numerous odd aspects surrounding the launch of Zuma that do not wholly mesh with publicly available information. For example, initial reports about the launch made it clear that the customer had explicitly contracted Zuma’s launch for no later or earlier than November 2017. This was delayed until January after SpaceX reportedly discovered issues with at least one Falcon 9 payload fairing, although the launch of Iridium-4 just over a month later was not delayed, and a replacement fairing was never spotted at Cape Canaveral (not that unusual). Why November 2017, and why delay the launch for nearly two months after that window was missed?
-
- Falcon 9 B1043 lifts off for the first time with Zuma on January 7. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
-
- Falcon 9 lifts off with Zuma on January 7. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
Of note, anonymous comments on Reddit were also corroborated by Eric Berger of Ars Technica, suggesting that Elon Musk did actually tell SpaceX employees that the launch of Zuma was possibly the most expensive and/or important contract SpaceX had yet to win. This raises a huge number of questions, as the payload was clearly small enough for Falcon 9 to return to Landing Zone-1 for recovery. This caps the mass of Zuma at about that of SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon spacecraft, indeed a fairly hefty capsule at around 10,000 kg, but still far from a satisfying explanation of its apparent value. While it seems unlikely that Zuma alone cost $1 billion or more, as many outlets have been suggesting (assuming?), it might be more reasonable to assume that the potential value of Zuma comes from future missions it might act as a proof of concept for – a highly secretive defense-related satellite constellation, in other words. This, too, slips uncomfortably far into the realm of “crazy government conspiracy theories,” but other explanations are far not forthcoming.
-->Sadly, the secrecy surrounding Zuma means that the general public will almost certainly remain in the dark for the indefinite future, at least until some future administration chooses to declassify it. The question of whether Zuma failed and whether that failure can be attributed to Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, or some combination of the two will nevertheless be answered imminently by delays or the lack-thereof for SpaceX’s upcoming launch manifest of Falcon Heavy, GovSat-1/SES-16, and PAZ, all scheduled within the next four weeks, give or take.
Elon Musk said in late November that he’s “tried to warn” legacy automakers and “even offered to license Tesla Full Self-Driving, but they don’t want it,” expressing frustration with companies that refuse to adopt the company’s suite, which will eventually be autonomous.
Tesla has long established itself as the leader in self-driving technology, especially in the United States. Although there are formidable competitors, Tesla’s FSD suite is the most robust and is not limited to certain areas or roadways. It operates anywhere and everywhere.
The company’s current position as the leader in self-driving tech is being ignored by legacy automakers, a parallel to what Tesla’s position was with EV development over a decade ago, which was also ignored by competitors.
The reluctance mirrors how legacy automakers initially dismissed EVs, only to scramble in catch-up mode years later–a pattern that highlights their historical underestimation of disruptive innovations from Tesla.
Elon Musk’s Self-Driving Licensing Attempts
Musk and Tesla have tried to push Full Self-Driving to other car companies, with no true suitors, despite ongoing conversations for years. Tesla’s FSD is aiming to become more robust through comprehensive data collection and a larger fleet, something the company has tried to establish through a subscription program, free trials, and other strategies.
-->Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
However, competing companies have not wanted to license FSD for a handful of speculative reasons: competitive pride, regulatory concerns, high costs, or preference for in-house development.
Déjà vu All Over Again
Tesla tried to portray the importance of EVs long ago, as in the 2010s, executives from companies like Ford and GM downplayed the importance of sustainable powertrains as niche or unprofitable.
Musk once said in a 2014 interview that rivals woke up to electric powertrains when the Model S started to disrupt things and gained some market share. Things got really serious upon the launch of the Model 3 in 2017, as a mass-market vehicle was what Tesla was missing from its lineup.
This caused legacy companies to truly wake up; they were losing market share to Tesla’s new and exciting tech that offered less maintenance, a fresh take on passenger auto, and other advantages. They were late to the party, and although they have all launched vehicles of their own, they still lag in two major areas: sales and infrastructure, leaning on Tesla for the latter.
-->I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk’s past warnings have been plentiful. In 2017, he responded to critics who stated Tesla was chasing subsidies. He responded, “Few people know that we started Tesla when GM forcibly recalled all electric cars from customers in 2003 and then crushed them in a junkyard,” adding that “they would be doing nothing” on EVs without Tesla’s efforts.
-->Companies laughed off Tesla’s prowess with EVs, only to realize they had made a grave mistake later on.
It looks to be happening once again.
A Pattern of Underestimation
Both EVs and self-driving tech represent major paradigm shifts that legacy players view as threats to their established business models; it’s hard to change. However, these early push-aways from new tech only result in reactive strategies later on, usually resulting in what pains they are facing now.
Ford is scaling back its EV efforts, and GM’s projects are hurting. Although they both have in-house self-driving projects, they are falling well behind the progress of Tesla and even other competitors.
It is getting to a point where short-term risk will become a long-term setback, and they may have to rely on a company to pull them out of a tough situation later on, just as it did with Tesla and EV charging infrastructure.
-->Tesla has continued to innovate, while legacy automakers have lagged behind, and it has cost them dearly.
Implications and Future Outlook
Moving forward, Tesla’s progress will continue to accelerate, while a dismissive attitude by other companies will continue to penalize them, especially as time goes on. Falling further behind in self-driving could eventually lead to market share erosion, as autonomy could be a crucial part of vehicle marketing within the next few years.
Eventually, companies could be forced into joint partnerships as economic pressures mount. Some companies did this with EVs, but it has not resulted in very much.
Self-driving efforts are not only a strength for companies themselves, but they also contribute to other things, like affordability and safety.
Tesla has exhibited data that specifically shows its self-driving tech is safer than human drivers, most recently by a considerable margin. This would help with eliminating accidents and making roads safer.
-->Tesla’s new Safety Report shows Autopilot is nine times safer than humans
Additionally, competition in the market is a good thing, as it drives costs down and helps innovation continue on an upward trend.
Conclusion
The parallels are unmistakable: a decade ago, legacy automakers laughed off electric vehicles as toys for tree-huggers, crushed their own EV programs, and bet everything on the internal-combustion status quo–only to watch Tesla redefine the industry while they scrambled for billions in catch-up capital.
Today, the same companies are turning down repeated offers to license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology, insisting they can build better autonomy in-house, even as their own programs stumble through recalls, layoffs, and missed milestones. History is not merely rhyming; it is repeating almost note-for-note.
Elon Musk has spent twenty years warning that the auto industry’s bureaucratic inertia and short-term thinking will leave it stranded on the wrong side of technological revolutions. The question is no longer whether Tesla is ahead–it is whether the giants of Detroit, Stuttgart, and Toyota will finally listen before the next wave leaves them watching another leader pull away in the rear-view mirror.
-->This time, the stakes are not just market share; they are the very definition of what a car will be in the decades ahead.
News
Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff
No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative.
A video posted on social media has shown an occupied Waymo driverless taxi driving directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles.
As could be seen in the short video, which was initially posted on Instagram by user Alex Choi, a Waymo driverless taxi drove directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles.
The driverless taxi made an unprotected left turn despite what appeared to be a red light, briefly entering a police perimeter. At the time, officers seemed to be giving commands to a prone suspect on the ground, who looked quite surprised at the sudden presence of the driverless vehicle.
People on the sidewalk, including the person who was filming the video, could be heard chuckling at the Waymo’s strange behavior.
The Waymo reportedly cleared the area within seconds. No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative. Still, the video spread across social media, with numerous netizens poking fun at the gaffe.
-->Others also pointed out that such a gaffe would have resulted in widespread controversy had the vehicle involved been a Tesla on FSD. Tesla is constantly under scrutiny, with TSLA shorts and similar groups actively trying to put down the company’s FSD program.
A Tesla on FSD or Robotaxi accidentally driving into an active police standoff would likely cause lawsuits, nonstop media coverage, and calls for a worldwide ban, at the least.
This was one of the reasons why even minor traffic infractions committed by the company’s Robotaxis during their initial rollout in Austin received nationwide media attention. This particular Waymo incident, however, will likely not receive as much coverage.
Tesla Model Y demand in China is through the roof, and new delivery dates show the company has already sold out its allocation of the all-electric crossover for 2025.
The Model Y has been the most popular vehicle in the world in both of the last two years, outpacing incredibly popular vehicles like the Toyota RAV 4. In China, the EV market is substantially more saturated, with more competitors than in any other market.
However, Tesla has been kind to the Chinese market, as it has launched trim levels for the Model Y in the country that are not available anywhere else. Demand has been strong for the Model Y in China; it ranks in the top 5 of all EVs in the country, trailing the BYD Seagull, Wuling Hongguang Mini EV, and the Geely Galaxy Xingyuan.
The other three models ahead of the Model Y are priced substantially lower.
Tesla is still dealing with strong demand for the Model Y, and the company is now pushing delivery dates to early 2026, meaning the vehicle is sold out for the year:
NEWS: New orders for all four Tesla Model Y trims in China are now officially sold out for 2025, as the factory’s remaining production capacity for the year has been fully allocated.
Estimated delivery dates for new orders now show January-February 2026. pic.twitter.com/Dfnu7yY58N
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 1, 2025
Tesla experienced a 9.9 percent year-over-year rise in its China-made EV sales for November, meaning there is some serious potential for the automaker moving into next year despite increased competition.
There have been a lot of questions surrounding how Tesla would perform globally with more competition, but it seems to have a good grasp of various markets because of its vehicles, its charging infrastructure, and its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite, which has been expanding to more countries as of late.
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
Tesla holds a dominating lead in the United States with EV registrations, and performs incredibly well in several European countries.
With demand in China looking strong, it will be interesting to see how the company ends the year in terms of global deliveries.
Elon Musk and Tesla try to save legacy automakers from Déjà vu
Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff
