[Alberta's Child]

I think you raise good points, but as an engineer I'd have to point something out here.

Even if they were able to dock at the ISS, it is very possible that whatever damage was done would not have been discernable or would not have yielded any information beyond what the NASA observers on the ground were able to deduce from looking at the video of the launch.

Someone had to make a decision here on a moment's notice (unlike the Challenger disaster, which involved plenty of thought ahead of time), and I have a hard time criticizing them for it.

In fact, it would not surprise me if we learn someday that NASA knew there was a potential problem with tile damage during the launch but decided that the other alternatives would have been more risky than taking a chance on a safe re-entry.

[eno_]

Even if they were able to dock at the ISS, it is very possible that whatever damage was done would not have been discernable or would not have yielded any information beyond what the NASA observers on the ground were able to deduce from looking at the video of the launch. You are completely correct. There are thousands of additional reasons a trip to IIS might not have done anything to help the situation. Two things would have to be true for that to be worthwhile: a) They could take a close enough look at the tiles to provide significant extra information, and b) The risks of transferring the crew to ISS, resupplying by Progress (which has a chance of failure) retrieveing the crew on the next shuttle mission, etc. would have to be lower than the risk of returning on this shuttle. If those conditions cannot be met, and there are many reasons they might not be, NASA made the right choice. However, if they simply choose to operate the mission as if there were no ISS, no Soyuz, no March shuttle mission, no supplies arriving on a Progress, etc., then they failed to take a plausible alternative into account.