[gambiting]

Yeah I definitely remember reading a full analysis about what would be required to actually launch a second shuttle in time to rescue them, and it would require nothing less than war effort for an operation never attempted before, and of which literally every single part would have to work first try, with no delays, and even then there was barely enough time to do it.

[hbn]

If this is true then it's increasingly bold of this article's author to blame the deaths of 7 astronauts on a single engineer for not getting the information hierarchy correct on a powerpoint

[gambiting]

I think this is the right summary:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/the-audacious-rescue...

Basically yeah, it could have been done, but only by pulling out one of the other shuttles out of active maintanance, skipping a whole bunch of repairs and necessary checks, launching in record time, and actually managing a situation where there are two shuttles in orbit, something NASA wasn't exactly prepared for at the time.

And the biggest question of all - what if the second shuttle becomes damaged in the exact same way on the way up?

That's not to say that NASA shouldn't have at least attempted a rescue. Knowing anything about the way US approaches situations like this, it would have been a "no expenses spared" effort and they would at least try. But unfortunately it's extremely likely that the second shuttle would have also been lost on the way, with crucial maintenance and checks skipped just to make it space worthy in time.