←back to thread

YC: Requests for Startups

(www.ycombinator.com)
514 points sarimkx | 1 comments | 14 Feb 24 16:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Animats ◴[14 Feb 24 19:59 UTC] No.39374469[source]▶
Most of those take a lot more time and money than YC usually offers.

There are some opportunities in "New Defense Technology". Something like a low-cost replacement for the Javelin anti-tank missile based on off the shelf phone camera parts ought to be possible. Of course, once that's out there, every insurgent group will have some.

"Explainable AI" is really important.

"Stablecoin finance" is mostly how to make sure the issuers don't steal the collateral. Maybe the people behind the stablecoin have an explosive collar welded around their neck. If the price drops, it detonates. That might work.

"Applying machine learning to robotics" has potential. Get bin-picking nailed and get acquired by Amazon. Many people have failed at this, but it might be possible now.

"Bring manufacturing back to America". Is it possible to build a cell phone in the US?

"Climate tech" - think automating HVAC and insulation selection, installation, and analysis. Installers suck at this. See previous HVAC article on HN. A phone app where you walk around and through the building with an IR camera is one place to start. Map the duct system. Take manometer readings. Crunch. That's do-able on YC-sized money.

replies(11): >>39374714 #>>39374756 #>>39374782 #>>39374844 #>>39374851 #>>39375176 #>>39375267 #>>39375678 #>>39376994 #>>39377509 #>>39380430 #
dilyevsky ◴[14 Feb 24 20:28 UTC] No.39374851[source]▶
The is no practical reason why javelin costs the $$$ it costs post r&d which was completed in the early 1990s. The matrix and most other electronics in it are extremely basic and could be obtained off the shelve already like 20 years ago. The concept is already outdated anyway - just use a cheap drone
replies(1): >>39375603 #
hef19898 ◴[14 Feb 24 21:24 UTC] No.39375603[source]▶
Some of zhe reason why a javelin costs what it costs:

- small production runs

- obsolete components

- obsolete production technology

- certification requirements

- continued support and design changes to account for the above

- the mandatory defence surcharge

From top of my head.

replies(1): >>39377018 #
a_vanderbilt ◴[14 Feb 24 23:25 UTC] No.39377018[source]▶
More or less all of these yes. I always found it ironic how the new Javelin is believed to be cheaper because the components are less mechanical and easier to source. The continued support especially. Military systems can be designed (and warrantied) to last decades if maintained properly - and that costs the big bucks.
replies(1): >>39379512 #
Animats ◴[15 Feb 24 05:41 UTC] No.39379512[source]▶
During wartime, it may be better to design for a short lifespan. Build the seeker with ordinary AA batteries welded in instead of thermal batteries with a standby life of decades. If it's intended for Ukraine or Taiwan, skip the part temperature range that would allow the thing to sit in the sun for a year in Iraq. Seal up the unit and stencil it "NO USER SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE" and "USE BEFORE 2026-12-31". It will have been fired at the enemy long before then.
replies(2): >>39381855 #>>39385420 #
1. a_vanderbilt ◴[15 Feb 24 17:23 UTC] No.39385420[source]▶
It isn't as simple as "make a new design with a shorter lifespan" either. These systems are intended to work the first time every time, and every change introduces numerous second-order consequences. You swapped the batteries? Great the balance of the missile now changed and we have to re-calculate the flight dynamics. Remove some shielding and conformal coating? Now the thermal properties have changed on the control boards and the welds are cracking due to different heat propagation. We certainly could make them cheap and dirty, but their reliability and consistency would suffer. The last thing you want is to shoot a missile and piss off the guy on the receiving end, who isn't dead but is now very motivated to get revenge.