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

251–260 of 313 posts

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

#251

Post by giarc »

estsauver wrote: post #104

One of the excellent things about YC is how they are completely unphased by moonshots. I don't know of any other organization that is nearly as supportive of ideas that would literally be called crazy other places. 3.5 years ago my cofounder were working on what was actually becoming an okay telecom referral business at the YC Fellowship, but my cofounder and I weren't happy. Pretty much every partner there enthusias…

>One of the excellent things about YC is how they are completely unphased by moonshots.

I have never seen YC as a company investing in moonshots. Most of the companies that get accepted seem to be building products for developers or similar saas businesses. Some of their recent biotech investments are a bit more cutting edge, but full of moonshots, YC is not.

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

#252

Post by scj »

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…

Given how many days of the year the roads are frozen and/or snow covered where I live, the safety trade-off might be worth it. Just so long as the max height is only about half a meter off the ground (hovering, not flying).

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

#253

Post by rplnt »

darkpuma wrote: post #228
rplnt wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all GA jet engines now are turbofans with high bypass ratios. Not something you can do at small scale. Would have guessed the relative speed they operate at also plays a role. And wouldn't this require quick changes in thrust? Not sure that heavy big diameter fans could do that.

Are GA turbofans really more common than GA turboprops?

Oh, my bad. I did not mean GA, but commercial passenger airplanes. As opposed to military jets.

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

#255

Post by ameister14 »

Cactus2018 wrote: post #241
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...

The demo video of his jetpack was shot in Monaco, not the US.

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

#256

Post by whb07 »

estsauver wrote: post #243
whb07 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That doesn’t address the core issue of rule of law and property rights though. Pick any number of countries in Africa and air drop them ag-tech that’s 50 years into the future. I don’t for a second believe that it would cause much of anything to change or improve.

Your US example appears to have been constrained by the current tech and knowledge of the day. In Kenya like you bring up, they aren’t limited by those things but rather lack of rule of law and property rights. So how can you compare them apples to apples?

This isn’t a chicken or egg thing. Rule of law and property rights are the necessary condition to allow people and society to grow and flourish. You can’t skip those necessary steps.

I mean look at the agricultural output for Zimbabwe for reference.

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

#257

Post by nradov »

npunt wrote: post #143
briandear wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then the only real issue is the noise pollution I live on Moffett Field next to the 101 -- the vehicles from the 101 are far more annoying than the airplanes. Just listen to traffic noise pretty much in any urban or suburban environment. The Caltrain sounds like -- well, a freight train. My point is that if we cared about noise pollution, we'd be paying more attention to the everyday noise all around us and develop…

True cars and trains are loud. However, we're on the verge of both Caltrain and car electrification, which will significantly reduce ambient noise. I can't believe we haven't cut & covered the Caltrain line yet. I imagine that's a project even the plentiful peninsula NIMBYs could get behind. As sibling points out, airplanes at moffett are rather far away, whereas these flying bikes are meant to be point-to-point in d…

At normal highway speeds most car noise comes from air movement and tires. Electrification will only deliver a slight noise reduction.

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

#258

Post by dwild »

tim333 wrote: post #216
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…

Those Jetcat engines are listed for sale here http://www.zedjet.com/jetcat-turbines.html with prices from £1700 to £5000 which doesn't seem so crazy expensive. Not sure about the reliability.

I don't know if he updated his comment since then, but that's exactly the one he talked about. It's his first link.

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

#259

Post by alexhutcheson »

83 wrote: post #246
razorbladeknife wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

That's so wild. Made my day.

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

#260

Post by farisjarrah »

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.

Ah this point piqued my interest. Before I thought this was a waste of time for YC to be throw $150,000 at this company, but with the military aspect it makes it a lot more of a feasible business model. The military doesn't need something with many hours of flight time for all scenarios. They might just need to get medical supplies delivered to the field really quick and this could more then accomplish that potentially.
Post reply on HN