This is giving me a severe case of Poe’s Law dissonance:
There is an actual Metro UK article on this company.
Feminist organisation seeks support for state-of-the-art Vulva Spaceship design
Jasmin Mittag, Founder of Wer braucht Feminismus? and campaign manager of WBF Aeronautics, said: ‘Space is for everyone. With our mission, we prove to the world that gender equality even has a place in space.
‘We are not only inspiring space travel, but we’re also rewriting the gender narrative.’
There is also a Change.org petition to launch it.
Help us strive for gender equality in space with a revolutionary spaceship
So if it is a parody, it’s brilliant that got people to buy it as legitimate.
If it’s legitimate then STEM and space exploration is dead, and our societal rot us now terminally gangrenous.
I hope it’s a parody but I’m terrified that it’s not.
I hope this is a joke, but I saw way too much production value in that short video.
Assuming its real, let me comment from an engineering perspective. If you’re putting features on a spacecraft purely for cosmetic reasons, and it appears those cutouts and curves (looking like a clit and vagina) do absolutely nothing for function of the craft, then its a waste of money. You can lobby whatever space agency you want, but no one is going to spend money on woke gender shit like this.
Some day when spacecraft production is a common as car production is today, you will almost certainly have manufacturers designing craft to be appealing to different aesthetic tastes. For now, slap a bumper sticker on it.
I’m not an engineer in anything but software, but I caught that, too. All those extra “bits” sticking out and hanging off DO NOT result in “the most aerodynamic shape possible”, as claimed. Unless they are necessary for it to function (in which case whatever is in them should be contained within the craft and not left hanging on the outside), they’re nothing but extra surface area and extra mass, which translates to a reduction in aerodynamic and power-to-weight efficiency.
Plus, there are physics-based reasons rockets are shaped the way they are. Stacking the payload and fuel in a cylindrical shape directly on top of and in line with the propulsion aids in stability on the launchpad and in flight. It’s similar to how a fighter jet’s engine(s) is/are nearly always contained within the fuselage and not out on the ends of the wings; it’s more stable and efficient to put the center of mass directly in line with the propulsion.
IOW, the shape of rockets is not all about sending phallic symbols to space, as implied in the video.
My money is on this being a scam..
If Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin can launch a Penis Shaped Rocket, Why can’t Feminists launch a Pocket P*ssy too?
/sarc
To put a slightly different twist on what Jonesy said, “If you’re putting features on a spacecraft purely for cosmetic reasons, you’re throwing away payload for the mission.” Which makes your prices suck in a rather competitive market and will prove that if all you care about is making a statement and not serving your customers, you’re gonna fail.
Spot on. If I remember correctly, there is something like a 9x fuel surcharge for every pound of payload. As in, to lift 1 pound of payload, it takes 10 pounds of fuel. One pound to lift the payload, and nine pounds to lift the fuel required to lift the payload.
.
Adding unnecessary stuff is just a waste of good fuel. Which just ends up costing you more to lift useful payload.
(I apologize in advance for the content of this comment.)
Everything will be fine and dandy until the P*ssy Rocket flies over Russian or Chinese airspace, and they send their P*nis Rockets up to pound it, good and hard.
Now that’s funny right there…