Thanks for posting this. It's enough for me. Kranz is the go-to guy for working out of tough spots. If he says there wasn't much that could be done, that carries a lot of credibility.
I recall in the one book about Apollo 13 that the flight controllers have a process of working through their options. They try to keep as many options as they can and not make decisions that unnecessarily eliminate potentials, "closing out" options, I think they call it.
Fact is, once that bird was up there in orbit, the only options were to leave it there or try to bring it back. The laws of physics dictated that it couldn't get to the ISS (conservation of energy, not enough delta v, different orbital height and inclination), nor could the ISS send its Soyuz to the shuttle (it has retrorockets but little in the way or orbital maneuver capability). NASA could have rushed a shuttle to the pad to bring the Columbia crew back, bypassing normal preparation and safety procedures, and risked losing a second ship or both crews if something went wrong. The Russians sending up a Soyuz? Were they ready to do that? Could the Soyuz dock with the shuttle? How many could the Soyuz bring down? How much resupply could the Soyuz bring up? A Progress module to the shuttle? The Russians had one ready to send to the ISS, which needed it. Could the ISS get by without it? It can attach to the ISS but can it get to or dock with the shuttle?
Seems like the options were limited. Stay up in orbit and die up there, or take a chance on getting back down (assuming they knew there was serious damage). Not the kind of limited options flight controllers prefer.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/835422/posts?page=270#270
It's our best quality that we are skeptical. We live Reagan's "trust but verify" credo, but sometimes, it's a good thing to be able to balance that skepticism with a common sense, studied approach to the facts, before we dig our heels in to one side or the other of an issue.