I assume they didn't have replacement tiles on board, but assuming they did, I wonder if that would have been possible.
It also occurs to me they could have sent an unmanned cargo carrier to dock with them with the required tiles and tools - maybe a Soyuz... but then, they could have all just gotten into the Soyuz.
There is no mention of the Soyuz in the article. I wonder if they considered that option.
They are not, and as I recall it was one of the criticisms a friend of mine levelled at the report as well. That by sending up a Soyuz, and using both that module and the backup, they could return 6 people to earth. Then a second and Soyuz mission and the Atlantis mission to replace the backup and return excess crew. Leaving Columbia on orbit awaiting some form of repair or scuttling.
Mostly though it re-emphasized how "not routine" going up into space is. Orbital windows not withstanding, you cannot just "decide" to catch the next one and bring up hardware to fly. Something I hope we can get to with Falcon 9 re-use.
5.2 Other Vehicles (Soyuz, Ariane 4)
There has been some discussion regarding the possibility of sending supplies to Columbia using an expendable launch vehicle – to lengthen the amount of time available to execute a rescue mission. Because of Columbia's 39-degree orbital inclination, an expendable launch from a launch site with a latitude greater than 39 degrees would not be able to reach Columbia. This rules out a Soyuz/Progress launch. There was an Ariane 4 in French Guiana that successfully launched an Intelsat satellite on February 15. The challenge with developing a supply kit, building an appropriate housing and separation system, and reprogramming the Ariane seems very difficult in three weeks, although this option is still in work.
Crew and ground comfort (combined with the specific altitude) and it was yet another microgravity mission.
I can only get hand wavy about the field is not uniform mass concentration blah blah. Presumably deep in the decimal points, a 40 degree orbit or a 38 degree orbit has higher (although still very small) gravitational anomalies.
It was a fairly common "track" for shuttle missions. Perhaps 5 or 6 missions were in the same orbit.
(edited to point out this was not cut and paste from the 107 marketing materials, its from an older launch, although the orbit is identical for identical reasons. Basically they reflew a 90s era mission, STS sixty-something)
"Columbia will climb to a 173-statute-mile (278-kilometer)-high orbit with a 39-degree inclination to the Earth's equator to allow the seven-member flight crew to maintain the same sleep/wake rhythms they are accustomed to on Earth and to reduce vibrational and directional forces that could affect on-board microgravity experiments."
The assumption is that if something fundamental goes wrong during a space flight, the crew dies. The people involved all know and accept the risk.
Yes, NASA prepared a report looking at what could have been done in theory, but the conclusion of the main report was that the damage doomed the spacecraft.
It also occurs to me they could have sent an unmanned cargo carrier to dock with them with the required tiles and tools - maybe a Soyuz... but then, they could have all just gotten into the Soyuz.
There is no mention of the Soyuz in the article. I wonder if they considered that option.