21 Responses to “nasa space shuttle”

1. admin Says:
   August 31st, 2007 at 12:58 am

   Ahem. I guess the question ‘have you used this object’ is pretty moot.

   Unless, of course, someone actually has. In which case we will bow down and kiss your feet.

2. Walker Hamilton Says:
   August 31st, 2007 at 1:25 pm

   Also…this “object” was to be used for a certain amount of time. If anything, the “object” has maintained it’s functionality _despite_ exceeding it’s recommended lifespan. I think that Nasa, as an organization, is the failure, not the shuttle. Nasa failed to roll out the next generation of space vehicle in the amount of time (the lifespan of the current shuttle fleet) that they were allotted.

3. Retards! Says:
   September 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm

   You are a fucking retard for picking the space shuttle.

4. Bob Says:
   September 3rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm

   I bought one of these, would buy again A .

5. Lou Says:
   September 10th, 2007 at 4:22 pm

   I wanted one of these when they first came out, but I was waiting for the REO Speedwagon skin and accessories that, to my dismay, never became available. I still can’t believe they don’t offer a color other than white.

6. WTPhuquet Says:
   September 20th, 2007 at 10:01 pm

   Over 118 successful missions, and a 98.4 percent success ratio… hmmm… yes, I would agree, picking this thing as a failure is “Fucking Retarded.”

7. admin Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 12:05 am

   Hmm, I wouldn’t be catching a commercial aircraft that had a 1.6% catastrophic failure rate any time soon. Funny that NASA don’t share your view and are ditching the shuttle design for its predecessor.

8. WTPhuquet Says:
   September 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm

   During the assembly of the IIS, NASA predicted a 2% chance of catestrophic failuer. This isn’t a commercial airliner. And the move to capsule based is economicly driven not engineering based. Learn your topic befopre commenting.

9. EagleKeeper Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm

   Well it just never panned out in what it was intended to do. Lower cost space travel . Way too costly to recover and rebuild. The Saturn V did the job better and safer. There is no replacement for displacement. 7.5 million pounds of thrust.

10. Dalex Says:
    October 19th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    The Space Transporation System is at the same time: 1) An amazing triumph of Technology and 2) None the machines it was supposed to be. Compromises made to get the funding to develop it created an expensive operational prototype system. A good read in the topic is “Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System” by Dennis R. Jenkins.

11. Chuck Says:
    November 14th, 2007 at 10:17 am

    The only problem with the shuttle program is management, which is government controlled/sponsored. ‘nuf said for any failures. The bitch works way beyond its intended lifespan. Where’s the failure in that?

    Government should have been the #1 failed object in this list. It acts like an object. No one likes it. No one likes any of the politicans,

12. macfanboy Says:
    November 25th, 2007 at 3:14 am

    omg this dosent even have a ipod dock built in… what a pile of crap… what!!!1!!@!! it dont run OSX NNNOOOOOOO its no good giant pile of crap… horrible design they didnt need that tail fin and that crazy color tank too much noise no minimalist enought i give it a -1000000 out of 10

    FAIL FAIL FAIL

    also i love this site can we have more post braggin about how great mac is… maybe a post on best steve jobs replica penis

13. Viktor Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    macfanboy are you ok? is everything allright? can we go on? thanks.
    spaceshuttle is not failture. shure, there were two catastrophes, but there were so many good results with this program, it can’t be failture. this technology istn’t anymore state of the art, that’s right. but it doesn’t make it failture, or is an elevator, that is twenty years old and had to be repaired two times failture?

14. tony-e30 Says:
    April 20th, 2008 at 1:28 am

    I think the rationale for choosing this item as a failure (much like the other objects in this category) is that it never lived up to its intended design function. The Space Shuttle, for example, was designed so that the fleet would have a flight, on average, of every two weeks. Obviously this frequency has proven unsustainable. As for the previously mentioned 1.6% fail rate, a governmentally funded program of this level of visibility and cost cannot sustain multiple catastrophic failures and survive unscathed. This helped in the breakdown of the flight frequency schedule. Whether or not the Shuttle is a technological failure remains a matter of oobjectional opinion. Oh, and yes, though it doesn’t have an iPod jack, if you want to hear a specific song you can just request NASA send it out over the airwaves to a few hundred miles up in space.

15. Spartan117 Says:
    May 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    (im making this comparable to a commercial aircraft)
    The Space shuttle came out in april 12 1981 had 2 failures that invlovled total hull loss
    Another aircraft The Boeing 767 came out September 12 1981 11 failures with total hull loss

    im just trying to prove the space shuttle is not a failure

    2 failures in more than 20 years

    it needs a redesign but not a failure

    Nasa and The U.S. Goverment Failed the shuttle

16. Alan Says:
    May 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    You sir are a moron!
    How can you put the space shuttle in the biggest tech product failures category???
    Yes it take alot of your tax money but look what it had done for mankind! it only has 1.6% fail rate but is seen to you it is a big failure! maybe you need to go to space camp, or read a bit more about the space shuttle…
    I totally disagree on the space shuttle been in the biggest tech product failures category!

    by the way this website rocks!

17. whowearsshortshorts Says:
    September 22nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm

    ahahahahahahah! i love how this list is like, zune, nokia communicator, oh and by the way AN ENTIRE FUCKING SPACE SHIP!!! but really, it’s cocky to call any kind of rocket a failure. whoever wrote the original post, u couldnt build one of these in your wet dreams. come on. really? a space ship?

18. Pluto Says:
    December 15th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    The failure of the space shuttle is that the development team got only half the money they wanted to have, therefore you get a bad design. If one compares the spaceshuttle with other launch vehicles, it is very expensive. If one compares the space shuttle with other people carrying space vehicles, it is unreliable (a lot less people died in soyuez capsules).

    Spartan117 misses the point that the boeing 767 makes a lot more flights than a spaceshuttle.

19. nothardlyever Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 12:35 am

    Oh come on, these things hardly ever blow up.

20. demonvalker Says:
    February 8th, 2009 at 6:49 am

    It’s not NASA’s fault that the next gerneration shuttle hasn’t rolled out even though as an engineer the thought of the stress and ware that this this gets that it’s designed lifespawn was within a decent level of safety. That said a total of 4 next generation shuttle have been designed and proto-type tested and all failed to be accepted by congress (they make Bush look like Enstein IMO) cause they were, get this “To sci-fi ish”. I’m not to surprised myself that these things are literally failing apart, after all how many high stress high ware devices last more then a few years let left alone pushing 30 . So give the old girls a break, they gone wayyyyyyy beyound what they where ever designed to do.

21. maximilien Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    Once again the idiot editor is being retarded, this time he could not eve come up with a bullshit reason why this is a failed product. It has in fact exceeded its life span, it is the only reusable space craft with a great sucess rate.

Have you an opinion, used or been to this object or place? Tell us what you like don't like about it, or post any specs/info about it: