You will find that what I have posted is the unvarnished truth.
Your idea of a consuables launch may be a good one... but it is not just the consumables. Remember the problem with the Apollo 13 CO2 scrubbers? The same thing applies with the shuttle. There are a host of systems that are not designed to work for more than a few days longer than the planned mission.
As to an ICBM launch, none of them are designed to enter orbit... they reach sub-orbital velocities, travel a distance outside the atmosphere and then re-enter. In addition, if an ICBM could go into orbit, I don't know if any ICBM is positioned in the right launch locale to reach the orbit that was occupied by the shuttle. Most of them are located in the Northern part of our country and targeted to go over the pole in a great circle route. Moving one and setting it up to launch toward the east would be a big problem. Modifying an ICBM to carry cargo is not easy either. A cargo module cannot be just cobbled together in a few days.
Could we design something that could accomplish this for the future? Probably yes? Could we do it re-actively in a crisis? No.
Why do you disbelieve what I have posted?
Are you privy to some laws of physics or NASA's capabilities that I am not? If so, please let me know.
Not all opinions are equal. I have provided facts and reasons for what I post based on the existing systems, their capabilities, and the laws of physics. Those who challenge my information and conclusions post "what-ifs" based on wishful thinking and offer no reasons why their "what-ifs" would work.
John Jamieson, a poster who says he worked for 27 years at the Kennedy Space Center, has not challenged me on my assertions and has answered questions I posed. He provided similar information and has been challenged by the same wishful thinkers who have no knowledge in the field at all.
Those who want to "lighten" the shutle load (ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Columbia cannot reach the ISS) have yet to tell me how they plan on doing it. The same goes for those who wish for an EVA inspection without the proper equipment as though a walk in space is the same as a stroll in the park.
All of these wishful thinkers' proposed "rescue" plans are predicated on the idea that NASA KNEW there was a problem. I don't think they did.
Let us do a "what if" hypothetical.
Let us suppose NASA did suspect a problem with the left wing tiles. They knew they did not have the equipment on STS-107 to do an inspection, either remotely or personally. In addition, the information would be of little use in landing the Shuttle. One way or the other the tiles are either OK or they are not. Knowing which cannot change the re-entry methodology because flying the Shuttle is "like flying a gliding brick" as one early shuttle pilot put it. Because of the volatile supersonic flight characteristics of the Shuttle, it can only safely be handled by a pre-programed computer auto-pilot until the final landing stages. Therefore no "seat of the pants" flight manuevers would or could keep stress off of the left wing and prevent the disaster.
Now, assuming this suspicion that the wing tiles are damaged, NASA's managers are faced with a decision: either they leave the shuttle and crew in orbit or they bring them home.
If they leave it in orbit the astronauts have only a few more days of life left. It is inevetible that they will die from asphixiation or CO2 poisoning when either system runs out or fails. Meanwhile, down on Earth NASA is faced with a public relations nightmare. Citizens, nations, families, and not least, politicians demand that SOMETHING BE DONE! But NASA knows they have no assets that can reach the doomed astronauts in time. Sad and pitiful pleadings from loved ones and stoic, resigned brave astronauts are contrasted with "do nothing" NASA administrators. In the end, the nation has a derelict space craft and seven dead astronauts in orbit and NASA has received a blackeye for inaction and mismanagement that may not be recoverable. This scenario is a LOSE-LOSE situation.
Altermately, they bring the shuttle home with two possible outcomes:
1: If the tiles are only minimally damaged, the shuttle lands, NASA managers quietly solve the falling insulation problem and everything is great. NASA WINS!
22: If the tiles are NG, the shuttle disintegrates on re-entry, the Astronauts are killed instantly with no suffering, no drawn out PR nightmare, and no accusations of NASA inaction in efforts to save them. The nation mourns its dead heroes, NASA mounts an investigation, finds the problem and fixes it to the acclaim of Congress who rewards them with added funding for shuttle maintanence. NASA DOESN'T LOSE... and in some ways NASA WINS.
Given this hypothetical, that NASA and the astronauts knew there was a potential problem, there is only one logical choice: Bring the astronauts and shuttle home, at least there is a 50-50 chance of the astronauts surviving. The option of leaving them in orbit is a guaranteed loser... the result is seven dead astronauts. The astronauts ONLY CHANCE was to de-orbit and risk re-entry. They took the only chance they had... and, sadly, they lost.
Bringing them home was a WIN-WIN for NASA in this cynical hypothetical case. Thank God, I am not cynical.