<p><font color="#800080">The orbiter was designed return from orbit with a max payload of 32klb. No mission did or will return from orbit with a payload greater that that. RTLS and AOA are abort landing weights and not "return" payloads Look in NSTS 07700 Posted by Cygnus_2112</font></p><p>The shuttle could be required to abort with the heaviest of payloads and Murphys law would probably make sure it happens that way. I would think the shuttle would be designed to at least land with the full 65,000 lb capability it was originally designed for in order to assure a safe return for the crew.</p><p>As Cali pointed out, it may be the context. In a nominal mission, the shuttle probably was rated for no more than 32K return capability. I've never seen that in any documentation I have ever seen and I currently do not have access to NSTS 07700. But I have heard the 32K figure before and have always assumed that the shuttle was designed to return with 32K under ideal conditions, not RTLS or other abort modes.</p><p>My earlier post took that into consideration. I mentioned that the shuttle could probably return with 65,000 lbs of payload. Return intact? Thats a different question since an RTLS has so far never had to actually be performed. I would think the shuttle could return intact but use a lot of runway with 65,000 lbs which was probably one of the considerations that drove the requirement for a 15,000 foot runway.</p><p>The shuttle might land and roll out in 12,000 feet but otherwise be fine. Although NASA officials would probably retire the orbiter in question citing airframe overstressing. At the very least, ground the orbiter until thorough testing could verify its reflight capability.</p><p>Unless or until an abort actually occurs, we probably wont ever really know for certain. We know what it was designed for, but even NASA stressed RTLS as being the one maneuver it hoped would never have to be tested so to speak. In fact, prior to STS-1 when the main concerns about shuttle flights were SSME and TPS readiness, a deliberate RTLS type mission profile was considered but abandoned as "Too risky".</p><p>In a book I wrote a few years back. I considered the possibility of what might happen if the shuttle aborted then fell short of the SLF but the crew knew it was falling short and had another landing target in sight. The Crawlerway. NASA would have to immediatly evac the affected areas then allow the shuttle to land on the crawlerway.</p><p>Before anyone starts mentioning all the drawbacks, remember...if NASA decides the difference would be a crawlerway landing with a live crew and not landing...committing the crew to certain death if they are too late for bailout. I think they would choose a crawlerway landing. The shuttle itself would be damaged probably beyond repair and the crew might even sustain significant injuries. But they would be alive assuming such a scenario occured.</p><p>I bring that up because it would be something that nobody ever considered at NASA AFAIK. No documentation to cover it AFAIK but a scenario however unlikely, still not impossible. Its also one that the actual outcome would not be known with 100% certainty but for the purpose of the book, it was illustrated as successful.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/df048faf-0e0f-40e3-9368-b2dfef3089da.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>