Jeff Findley wrote:


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.

How long can the second stage "wait" before performing a second (and I
presume final?) burn?

Also, I'm still trying to come to grips with what apart from an
"according to common usage among the peanut gallery" "explosion" would
have caused those pressure relieving panels to blow. "Engine pressure
release" sounds a bit like describing a fire as an "exothermal event
with external charring." I think it was a great demonstration of the
Falcon9's resiliance but euphamisms (assuming they are indeed getting
used here) don't speak well towards organizational resiliance. Or
perhaps it is just my peanut-gallery understanding of terminology.

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...