Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 313 posts

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#81

Post by dmayman »

npunt wrote: post #73
nrb wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I totally agree. I was attempting to make the point that purpose-built aircraft with more highly trained pilots still succumb to this. A random on a flying motorcycle doesn’t stand a chance.

Ya it seems like risk profile isn't very clear, nor do major risks have sufficient mitigations. I feel like the easier place to start is a low-speed automated cargo delivery system that runs on pre-defined flight paths and only in certain weather conditions. Even then you're dealing with pretty decent risk profile given the failure mode of anything flying is rather dangerous. I'm not against flying things in cities p…

The safety system has to be integral with initial design and it is. Before these are used in urban environments the machine must be able to set itself down safely regardless of the failure. That is possible.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#82

Post by natch »

dmayman wrote: post #51
npunt wrote: post #42

These don't look safe, even assuming perfect mechanical reliability, because humans will be piloting them over major population centers. Humans are generally dumb and inattentive, and this particular vehicle looks like it would attract especially dumb humans who'd use them to try dumb things. Since they won't need any piloting certification, this is basically offloading risk onto everyone on the streets below. I'd fe…

Just as for $1500 drones we will have a fly by wire system that precludes controlled flight into terrain or other obstacles.

Systems do not preclude controlled flight into terrain. They simply purport to. These are different things. And before you say "in that case it's not controlled" well yes it is.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#83

Post by etxm »

snowmaker wrote: post #78
chaosprophet wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could YC pro-actively get in touch with the folks already working on the project? Sounds like they would be your best bet at success.

That's a good idea. I just emailed them.

It was cool to witness this thread!

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#84

Post by snowmaker »

fitzroy wrote: post #47
salimmadjd wrote: post #14

I love so many things about this, yet at the same time I don't get the positioning of this product. 1 - Is this is a product for consumers who buy $300-500K super sports cars? 2 - Is this targeted to the consumers who buy private planes? 3 - Is this for search and rescue market? Group 1 - I don't know. Why not buy a drone-based technology that runs on batteries that might be cheaper and perhaps more reliable. Yes, it…

4 - Quidditch

I love this idea. I've always wanted a way to play Quidditch, and short of someone building a Quidditch court into an orbiting space station, couldn't think of how you would do it. This is the answer!

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#85

Post by [deleted] »

ian0 wrote: post #8
mlurp wrote: post #3

I know it's really hard to predict what people will or won't want in the future, but... Would people want this, even if it worked really well?

Yes! Even just for the fun component. But if it practically worked as a day to day driver it would absolutely revolutionise traffic in some cities, such as Jakarta with 18 million motorcycles all stuck in traffic. Cant imagine all the issues you'd have to work through to make that work though. It would be a good time to invest in roof-repair and insurance businesses.

[deleted]

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#86

Post by RoteWaterfall »

dmayman wrote: post #64
eevilspock wrote: post #57

With our environment going to hell, we don't need this. So much for the argument that capitalism entrusts wealth in the hands of a few for the benefit of all, or that wealth correlates to merit in any meaningful sense.

How do you do the economics on the value of the lives this can and will save?

Please explain how this will save lives.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#87

Post by philipodonnell »

ehnto wrote: post #74
npunt wrote: post #42

These don't look safe, even assuming perfect mechanical reliability, because humans will be piloting them over major population centers. Humans are generally dumb and inattentive, and this particular vehicle looks like it would attract especially dumb humans who'd use them to try dumb things. Since they won't need any piloting certification, this is basically offloading risk onto everyone on the streets below. I'd fe…

That's why I don't think we would ever have flying cars either. We can barely handle driving on flat surfaces and I suspect most people on the road only get by idly emulating simple line following machines rather than actually engaging the whole situation. It takes a third party to orchestrate busy sections of our current flying vehicles, planes, so I can't see any alternative to full automation of a mass of flying c…

It takes a third party to orchestrate busy sections of our current non-flying vehicles too!

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#88

Post by benj111 »

So if you lie on top of a ducted fan like that, how is it not going to impede airflow?

Also what happens if you have a loose thing on your person that gets sucked into the fan.

The image looks nice and Sci fi, but that design isn't practical.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#90

Post by dmayman »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #75

Glenn Martin and Martin Jetpack [0] (Glenn left the company in 2015 though) has been trying to build and bring to market something similar for the past decade (development has been going on decades before that). There's apparent commercial, private, and government interest in the device, but somehow that hasn't actually manifested into a finished and delivered product. When Glenn spoke to a group of potential investo…

Our tech could not be more different to the MJP. Theirs was a gasoline engine powering a pair of ducted fans. Too many single points of failure and never able to keep the engine cool, not possible to fly much faster than 60mph. Ours is 1/3rd the size, will fly at 4x the speed. We’ve flown our jetpacks all over the world. We already have a development agreement with the US Navy. They are perfect for overt (perhaps not covert) military ops - insertion and extraction and getting medics into position. Why risk a Blackhawk and crew??!!

Why not for governments and EMS. If we can get EMS medics to heart attack and stroke victims just 1 min quicker the number of lives saved is 100,000 - 200,000/yr just in USA. Isn’t that worth taking a shot at?

I don’t understand the point about flying high enough. We can fly at over 15,000ft

Post reply on HN