Hmmm...if it fell into the Indian Ocean with the second stage still attached, *and* the Falcon 9 performed nominally, this suggests that the Zuma satellite may have had either a solid propellant third stage motor (an AKM--Apogee Kick Motor--either attached, or integrated into the spacecraft, as with some satellites) or a liquid propellant engine (or a set of thrusters) that would fulfill the same function as an AKM. These propulsion systems are used to either boost satellites into higher orbits or (if a satellite is so heavy that it's close to--or a bit beyond--the launch vehicle's maximum payload capability to the desired orbit) to complete the orbital injection process. If Zuma was equipped with any of these propulsion systems, it would have been rendered useless if Zuma failed to separate from the Falcon 9 second stage (the payload adapter was supplied by Northrop Grumman; more on this below). Also:
Whenever the Falcon 9 (or any launch vehicle, especially a commercial one) fails, its manufacturer "stands down" and delays subsequent launches until the cause of the failure is determined (or its most likely cause or causes is/are identified, because sometimes the "smoking gun" is impossible to find), and SpaceX hasn't done this, and:
This *lack* of a launch vehicle "stand down" also occurs if a mission fails due to a spacecraft malfunction, but its launch vehicle does its job properly. The Titan IIIA launch of the LES 1 (Lincoln Experimental Satellite 1) spacecraft on February 11, 1965 is an example of this. LES 1 failed to reach its intended highly-eccentric (2,800 km x 15,000 km) orbit and achieved few of its objectives because its attached solid propellant kick motor failed to fire due to an ordnance wiring error, but the Titan IIIA properly injected LES 1 into its planned initial 2,800 km circular parking orbit, so the Titan IIIA test series wasn't delayed. (LES 1, incidentally, has begun transmitting again [see:
http://www.pe0sat.vgnet.nl/satellite/sat-history/les-1/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincol...ental_Satellite ] decades after it ceased transmitting in 1967, much like the also long-dead AMSAT-OSCAR 7 [see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMSAT-OSCAR_7 ] amateur radio satellite.) In addition:
The Zuma launch was delayed for almost two months due to concern about its Falcon 9's payload fairing, following testing of a payload fairing for another customer's Falcon 9 (see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...ah1ce34tmx0gbsy ), and apparent spacecraft/second stage separation failure--according to this article--may have been caused by the Northrop Grumman-supplied payload adapter. As well:
During the launch coverage (see:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CArCgeXn3AQ ), the SpaceX presenter mentioned--at about the 3:44 point--that payload fairing separation "should occur any second now," but not until the ~5:27 point (well after the first stage's boost-back burn) did he mention the fairing again, and in a rather odd way: "All right, so we'll address the payload deployment here in a second, once we have more information." Then he moved on to describing the first stage's return for a few seconds, then confirmed that the fairing had separated. Now:
While this doesn't necessarily mean that there was any problem with the fairing separation, I wonder if maybe it (perhaps one half) "hung up" for a moment? If so--maybe Zuma was a large spacecraft that took up most of the payload envelope volume?--such a "hang up" could have damaged the satellite, but even if there was no damage, seeing the two fairing halves separate at different times and/or different velocities (via the on-board camera and/or radar) could have delayed the announcement of this mission milestone. I don't know if any of these things occurred, but such unexpected events could have been responsible for the unusual coverage. (A more prosaic possibility is that SpaceX wanted to "err on the side of caution" concerning security, but I doubt this, because SpaceX has launched other secret payloads and forthrightly announced fairing separation after cutting to Stage 1-only video coverage [such as at the ~15:20 point in the following video of the NROL-76 launch in May, see:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzQpkQ1etdA ].)