Editing Space Shuttle Columbia disaster (section)

=== Possible emergency procedures ===
In its report, the CAIB discussed potential options that could have saved ''Columbia''{{'}}s crew.<ref name=ars_rescue>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/the-audacious-rescue-plan-that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/|title=The audacious rescue plan that might have saved space shuttle ''Columbia''|website=Ars Technica|date=February 1, 2016|access-date=August 15, 2022|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160929012837/http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/the-audacious-rescue-plan-that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/|archive-date=September 29, 2016}}</ref> They determined that the mission could have been extended to at most 30 days (February 15), after which the [[lithium hydroxide]] canisters used to remove carbon dioxide would have run out.{{r|caib_report|p=173}} On STS-107, ''Columbia'' was carrying the Extended Duration Orbiter, which increased its supply of oxygen and hydrogen.<ref name="CAIBVolIIAppendixD12">{{cite web
  | last1 = Gehman
  | first1 = Harold
  | author-link1 = Harold W. Gehman Jr.
  | last2 = Barry
  | first2 = John
  | last3 = Deal
  | first3 = Duane
  | last4 = Hallock
  | first4 = James
  | author-link4 = James N. Hallock
  | last5 = Hess
  | first5 = Kenneth
  | last6 = Hubbard
  | first6 = G. Scott
  | author-link6 = G. Scott Hubbard
  | last7 = Logsdon
  | first7 = John
  | author-link7 = John Logsdon
  | last8 = Logsdon
  | first8 = John
  | author-link8 = Douglas D. Osheroff
  | last9 = Ride
  | first9 = Sally
  | author-link9 = Sally Ride
  | last10 = Tetrault
  | first10 = Roger
  | last11 = Turcotte
  | first11 = Stephen
  | author-link11 = Stephen A. Turcotte
  | last12 = Wallace
  | first12 = Steven
  | last13 = Widnall
  | first13 = Sheila
  | author-link13 = Sheila E. Widnall
  | title = STS-107 In-Flight Options Assessment
  | publisher = CAIB Report, Volume II, Appendix D.13
  | date = 2003
  | url = https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/caib/news/report/pdf/vol2/part13.pdf
  | access-date = August 15, 2022
| archive-date = September 21, 2012
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120921163712/http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/caib/news/report/pdf/vol2/part13.pdf
  | url-status = live
  }}</ref>{{rp|398}} To maximize the mission duration, non-essential systems would have been powered down,{{r|CAIBVolIIAppendixD12|page=399}} and animals in the [[Spacehab]] module would have been euthanized.{{r|CAIBVolIIAppendixD12|page=397}}

When STS-107 launched, ''Atlantis'' was undergoing preparation for the STS-114 launch on March 1, 2003. Had NASA management decided to launch a rescue mission, an expedited process could have begun to launch it as a rescue vehicle. Some pre-launch tests would have been eliminated to allow it to launch on time. ''Atlantis'' would have launched with additional equipment for [[extravehicular activity|EVAs]], and launched with a minimum required crew. It would have rendezvoused with ''Columbia'', and the STS-107 crew would have conducted EVAs to transfer to ''Atlantis''. ''Columbia'' would have been remotely deorbited; as Mission Control would have been unable to remotely land it, it would have been disposed of in the Pacific Ocean.{{r|CAIBVolIIAppendixD12|pages=400–404}}

The CAIB also investigated the possibility of on-orbit repair of the left wing. Although there were no materials or adhesives onboard ''Columbia'' that could have survived reentry, the board researched the effectiveness of stuffing materials from the orbiter, crew cabin, or water into the RCC hole. They determined that the best option would have been to harvest tiles from other places on the orbiter, shape them, and then stuff them into the RCC hole. Given the difficulty of on-orbit repair and the risk of further damaging the RCC tiles, the CAIB determined that the likelihood of a successful on-orbit repair would have been low.{{r|CAIBVolIIAppendixD12|pages=405–406}}