20 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 58.5 ms ] thread
Setting aside the absurd notion that form isn’t following function in existing aerospace design, can anyone knowledgeable opine on the claims made here about a vulvic craft being more aerodynamic than traditional “phallic” designs?
Nonsense. There's no room for the engines and fuel.
It doesn't need fuel, it runs on goddess energy and feminine mystique.
It should also squirt liquid oxygen in space to move in directions
I think it's a bit too early for April Fools.

The video is very cringe.

Is this some sort of sexual related joke?

Whatever turns you on, man!

This is Onion fodder, right?
Absurd.

What about geometric shape equity?

I'm offended that wheels are round! We need more representation of squares and triangles in wheels.

Let's get a petition going to change the laws of physics so we can use any shape we want.

Seriously though are they serious or is this a gag?

While this project’s intentions are unclear, I can tell you from my own college experience that there are some who take this seriously. At least while in college.
And seriously, why is the diameter irrational? Couldn't we just simplify things a lot and make all things rational?
I just love this kinds of projects.

If it's an elaborate joke it's a great joke.

If it's a group of women that are seriously saying: "there's too many penises in space we should send more vulvas" it's hilarious.

If it's confirmed its indeed more aerodynamic and we are seeing the beggining of a new era of space vulvas that will be censored in news reports due to it's shape than all hope is lost but still hilarious.

It is challenging to consider that there may be such crotch-centric thinkers in circulation, but that's diversity, I guess.
"Why not a twin-hull design?" asked Breasts.
I hope it will allow docking with phallus shaped rockets occasionally.