The space community has not learned much about the apparent loss of the Zuma payload launched by SpaceX on January 7, but the mystery has had one clear aftereffect: critics of SpaceX, including several far-right publications, have weaponized the failure of a national security satellite in their continued stream of attacks on the company.

For example The Federalist, a publication that defended the dating habits of Alabama Judge Roy Moore in his Senate campaign, opined about the accident, "It is concerning, to say the least, that American taxpayers have become the guinea pigs who will bear the risks and the costs before a final determination can be made." The conservative Washington Times also published a critical piece, noting that, "Taxpayers are tired of getting ripped off."

These articles were written by individuals with little apparent knowledge about the aerospace industry. The Federalist author lists, among his qualifications, that he "helped the 2014 freshmen Republican class to set up offices." The Times author notes on his LinkedIn profile that he is a "professional coalition builder."

Ars has previously reported on a shadowy, largely right-wing campaign to cast doubt on the reliability of SpaceX. This past summer, those efforts focused on a government budget measure, known as the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. At the time it wasn't entirely clear who was behind the campaign.

“Doubts”

Now, at least one of the post-Zuma criticisms can be linked to SpaceX's competitors in the launch industry: Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the parent companies of United Launch Alliance. A recent opinion article in Forbes raised like-minded concerns about SpaceX's reliability under the rubric of "doubts." This was authored by Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of The Lexington Institute, which derives revenue from contributions by Lockheed, Boeing, and other major defense companies.

Thompson's article appeared to be coordinated with a hearing on commercial spaceflight this week in the US House. While most representatives asked good, probing questions about delays in the commercial crew program—the effort by Boeing and SpaceX to build spacecraft to carry astronauts to the International Space Station—Congressman Mo Brooks was an exception.

Brooks represents the northern tier of Alabama, including the Decatur region where United Launch Alliance builds its rockets. During the hearing, Brooks said, "I'm going to read from an article that was published earlier this week, entitled 'Doubts about SpaceX reliability persist as astronaut missions approach;' it was in Forbes magazine." Brooks, who has received about $70,000 in donations from Lockheed and Boeing during his congressional career, then went on to read critical parts of the piece into the record.

It is entirely true that SpaceX suffered two catastrophic failures with its Falcon 9 rocket—one in 2015 about two minutes into the launch of a cargo mission to the ISS and a second in 2016 with an accident on the launch pad. The company says that it has learned from these failures and indeed, in 2017, had a run of 18 successful launches.

Zuma fallout

With regard to Zuma, the company has emphatically denied any failure with the performance of its Falcon 9 rocket. Beyond this, SpaceX's actions indicate confidence, too. It may perform a static fire of its new Falcon Heavy rocket as soon as Saturday on its Florida launch pad, and it is pressing ahead with future launches. The customer for SpaceX's next commercial launch later this month, SES, expressed full confidence in the rocket company.

"Following Zuma mission, our engineering staff have reviewed all relevant launch vehicle flight data following last Falcon-9 launcher mission," the satellite company tweeted this week. "We are confident on SpaceX readiness & set for Govsat-1 launch late Jan!"

Ultimately, it seems unlikely that SpaceX would make such definitive statements about its rocket, and tell customers the same, if it had serious questions about the Falcon 9's performance. This would, effectively, be a cover-up and almost certainly cause lasting, long-term damage to its reputation as a reliable launch provider—much more so than admitting to a single accident.

If SpaceX truly did no wrong, which seems likely, full exoneration for Zuma will probably only come through one of two ways. The payload adapter's manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, could admit to a fault. (The company has so far not commented). Alternatively, the US government could announce the cause of the failure. (So far, the Pentagon will not even acknowledge there was a failure of Zuma). Neither seems likely in the near term, if ever.

The uncertainty after Zuma, therefore, has offered fertile ground for SpaceX's critics to reemerge after the company's success in 2017. In the meantime, its commercial satellite customers seem content. NASA, too, is pressing ahead with efforts to certify the Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon spacecraft for flights later this year or early in 2019. As for how the US national defense industry really feels, we probably won't know that until the next couple of defense launch competitions are announced.