In article ,
says...

Rick Jones wrote:
It would seem that the most recent Falcon 9 launch included an
unplanned test of its engine-out capability:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10...alco_flameout/

And it would seem that a secondary payload isn't quite where it was
meant to be:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2...goes-awry?lite

From what I read today, this is looking more and more like a complete
failure for the secondary payload.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...review-falcon-
9-ascent-issues/

From above, it looks like the plan was to have the second stage do a
burn after Dragon separation. However, the second stage didn't pass a
propellant mass check required by NASA to insure that the satellite
would be inserted into an orbit that would guarantee no risk of
collision with ISS. The backup plan to release the satellite in the
second stage's parking orbit was executed. Because of this, none of the
remaining second stage propellant could be used to help move the
satellite into a more favorable orbit.

I wonder what the final orbit for the secondary payload would have been
if Falcon 9's second stage would have been allowed to perform a final
burn to fuel/oxidizer depletion.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer