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

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

#241

Post by Cactus2018 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #153

Where are they getting the engine? You can get model aircraft jet engines with enough power for this.[1] Various human-carrying craft have been built that way, such as the Zapata Flyboard.[2] But the engines have a lifespan measured in hours and not enough reliability for carrying humans. That's why all the demo videos of these things are over water, or tethered. People have been trying to build small, cheap jet engi…

> That's why all the demo videos of these things are over water....

I thought they were over water due to FAA regulations. From an article about Larry Page's Kitty Hawk Flyer. [1]

> > In the US, the Flyer falls under the FAA's rules for ultralight aircraft, meaning no pilot's license is needed so long as it's flown over water or "uncongested areas."

[1] https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/kitty-hawk-flyer-electric...

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

#242

Post by jonwachob91 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

thinkingemote wrote: post #151

For me the moonshot problem I'd like to see solved would be trash. Literally! I've been to New York the first class world city where they pile plastic bags full of trash outside the houses and been to leafy suburbs in Europe where they put these bags in boxes and leave them outside too. Meanwhile in developing countries trash causes real pollution and health issues. But in all places it's people create waste and the…

Come up with something more formal and work on it! If you get some evidence of success you should submit it to YC and anyone else that will look at it!

The world doesn't change b/c we will it to, the world changes b/c we take action!

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

#243

Post by estsauver » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC

whb07 wrote: post #223

estsauver wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally, and it that sense not sure if we would count. There probably isn't much of a sustainable space in below a few hundred k though.

Here’s a quick question, what makes you think it’s the lack of technology that is the cause for poor farming yields? What makes you think it’s not due to property rights and rule of law? If you went 50 years in to the future and came back with X widget for farming and just dropped it in random place in South Sudan or Niger, I don’t think they would just become farming power houses.

When we talk about basic ag tech, we're not talking about drones or robots, we're not even talking about mechanization, it's mostly fertilizer and seed breeding.

- The accumulated knowledge of crop science is pretty strong, it's not a secret what the limiting factors in cereals crops are.

- Empirical results (see groups like The One Acre Fund, extensive research farm results in the region, high confidence RCTs leave basically no doubt)

- For US farmers prior to ~1930, they had the same average yields as Kenya does currently. In fact, fertilizer usage and yield have a very strong correlation and Kenya has a very similar curve.

Are there factors besides inputs that can impact yield? Absolutely. You could see from satellite imagery the places where conflict reached in Syria by harvest time as that conflict was developing. Market access and infrastructure in Kenya are super hard also, fertilizer is more expensive in rural Kenya than it is in the United States even though the consumers are much poorer.

Basically, there are certainly places that we're not a good fit for. I don't think we could operate in places with active conflicts like South Sudan, but Africa's a real big place. Kenya is quite stable and has effective if not formalized property rights for most smallholders. The thing I always try to remember is that America had very similar problems. The area that is now the great bread basket of the world also used to be referred to as "The Wild West."

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

#244

Post by dalbasal » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 2:02 PM UTC

darkpuma wrote: post #224

dalbasal wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that "most pertinent problem" is tech savvy investor/journalist bait... it's genius. I read that and thought "well that's probably solveable." OTOH... In the context of a moonshot, maybe the non-existence of an affordable & appropriate engine is ok. Tesla started with an unaffordable battery, and built a really expensive car with it. The car was good though, compared to other cars in the sheiks & princes price ran…

The military market for tiny turbine engines has been serious for decades; cruise missiles use them. I really do not believe that a plucky SV attitude towards engineering and VC funding is going to waltz into this domain and shock the world. But I definitely believe that SV self-confident arrogance would lead some to convince themselves otherwise.

The premise of a longshot is that it doesn't seem (and isn't) likely that any given plucky startup is likely to succeed, but the rewards are worth the risk.

Anyway... the military isn't always the ideal market force for driving down costs.

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

#245

Post by typetehcodez » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

deanclatworthy wrote: post #191

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…

Indeed. If your car's power cuts, or breaks fail - the odds of you surviving are incrementally getting higher every year we're on the road. Cars are getting safer and safer, but surely part of that is due to the fact they're on the ground. If I'm even 10 metres under the ground, flying at 50km/h, if this device fails, of the battery runs out, you're not gonna live to the tell the tale. There is no parachuting, no way…

This. For all the, "Where's my jetpack?" angst in the world of science fiction fanboys (I am one) and start-up builders, there seems to be a disconnect with the rest of humanity on this issue. If the chance of failure is > 0% and odds of death on failure is > 95%, I don't see how a product like this will ever become more than a pipe dream, or at best a prototype flown by a thrill seeker over open water for a publicity stunt.

Edit: After reflecting on this I realize that airplanes probably fall into these statistics, at least for catastrophic failure anyway. I'd be curious to examine statistics in more detail to figure out what a comfortable level of risk would be, but for now, I guess I fall into the ranks of your typical armchair critic on this one.

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

#246

Post by 83 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

razorbladeknife wrote: post #233

Animats wrote: post #153

Where are they getting the engine? You can get model aircraft jet engines with enough power for this.[1] Various human-carrying craft have been built that way, such as the Zapata Flyboard.[2] But the engines have a lifespan measured in hours and not enough reliability for carrying humans. That's why all the demo videos of these things are over water, or tethered. People have been trying to build small, cheap jet engi…

I wonder if it's legal to use Jet turbine in my car to produce extra acceleration for overtaking during commute.

It's been done. http://www.ronpatrickstuff.com/

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

#247

Post by ccozan » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

chriselles wrote: post #166

I am a motorcycle nut and aviation nut since birth. I’ve also jumped out of a dozen aircraft types via static line and ram air free fall chutes. And I enjoy paragliding. There’s nothing more I would like to see than a new form of personal flight. However, I don’t see the viability of this thing at all. Likely due to my having been in close proximity to the Martin Jetpack slow motion disaster over the last decade. Rel…

Actually the idea is quite similar to the "container" in the Agents of Shield [1]. A bit visionary.

[1] https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Containment_...

EDIT: there are jets small which could be attached to a rectangular frame. But I don't see where this can be used commercially? With what could you connect up in the air?

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

#248

Post by darkpuma » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 2:27 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #244

darkpuma wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military market for tiny turbine engines has been serious for decades; cruise missiles use them. I really do not believe that a plucky SV attitude towards engineering and VC funding is going to waltz into this domain and shock the world. But I definitely believe that SV self-confident arrogance would lead some to convince themselves otherwise.

The premise of a longshot is that it doesn't seem (and isn't) likely that any given plucky startup is likely to succeed, but the rewards are worth the risk. Anyway... the military isn't always the ideal market force for driving down costs.

The military isn't necessarily interested in driving costs down, but they and their numerous well funded, technically competent and experienced contractors are highly motivated when it comes to improving size, reliability, fuel efficiency, etc.

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

#249

Post by SilasX » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

dmurray wrote: post #193

Animats wrote: post #153

Where are they getting the engine? You can get model aircraft jet engines with enough power for this.[1] Various human-carrying craft have been built that way, such as the Zapata Flyboard.[2] But the engines have a lifespan measured in hours and not enough reliability for carrying humans. That's why all the demo videos of these things are over water, or tethered. People have been trying to build small, cheap jet engi…

Agreed, this seems like a huge problem and this > The startup’s most pertinent problem is creating the autonomous stabilization technologies that will make flying the Speeder effortless and safe. looks like a smokescreen for marketing to the tech crowd. Everyone is going to believe they can solve the stabilisation problem: that's "just software" and we see demos of robots solving stabilisation problems all the time.…

Whenever a hip startup dismisses the problem as “just software”, I worry that it will randomly crash (in both senses) because someone took down an npm library.

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

#250

Post by comicjk » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

typetehcodez wrote: post #245

deanclatworthy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. If your car's power cuts, or breaks fail - the odds of you surviving are incrementally getting higher every year we're on the road. Cars are getting safer and safer, but surely part of that is due to the fact they're on the ground. If I'm even 10 metres under the ground, flying at 50km/h, if this device fails, of the battery runs out, you're not gonna live to the tell the tale. There is no parachuting, no way…

This. For all the, "Where's my jetpack?" angst in the world of science fiction fanboys (I am one) and start-up builders, there seems to be a disconnect with the rest of humanity on this issue. If the chance of failure is > 0% and odds of death on failure is > 95%, I don't see how a product like this will ever become more than a pipe dream, or at best a prototype flown by a thrill seeker over open water for a publicit…

Commercial airplanes are much safer than cars (because they're rigorously maintained, observed, and operated by professionals). Little ultralight planes might be the best analogy for this project - but they're used by thrill-seekers, just like you predicted.