←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 The concept is already outdated anyway - just use a cheap drone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 #
hef19898 ◴[15 Feb 24 12:26 UTC] No.39381855[source]▶
Considering that WW2 artillery shells were used all the way into th 70s and 80s, you might rethink that.
replies(1): >>39382327 #
lukan ◴[15 Feb 24 13:19 UTC] No.39382327[source]▶
Ukraine is out of ammunition NOW. If the war suddenly ends and they have to dispose of warheads that will expire soon, that is a cost that can be paid. But more importantly for them is ammunition now, if that can be achieved by making the build process simple, it should probably be done.
replies(4): >>39383285 #>>39383483 #>>39385491 #>>39411904 #
khokhol ◴[15 Feb 24 15:04 UTC] No.39383483{3}[source]▶
Ukraine is out of ammunition NOW

There's no need to be hyperbolic.

They're certainly facing a serious situation. But by all accounts they still have some runway. And if you'll check your current news feeds very carefully: no, the front hasn't collapsed, and no, the Russians aren't on the verge of overrunning Kharkiv and Odesa.

So no, Ukraine is not "out of ammunition NOW".

replies(1): >>39384073 #
lukan ◴[15 Feb 24 15:44 UTC] No.39384073{4}[source]▶
They have so little ammunition, that they have to think 2 or 3 times about every artillery and even more so every anti air shot they have to take. With resserves are shrinking and less and less on the way. It is hard, waging war this way. Russia on the other hand is now in war economy mode. They produce ammunition and tanks way, way faster, than the west.

So if there would be a startup saying, we can build a automated factory, spitting out cheap javelin alike warheads using off the shelf components, would surely get money, if they have some expertise.

replies(1): >>39385383 #
khokhol ◴[15 Feb 24 17:20 UTC] No.39385383{5}[source]▶
Right, but making statements that are plainly and objectively false (simply for alarmist effect) doesn't help make that happen.
replies(2): >>39386013 #>>39394190 #
1. oneshtein ◴[16 Feb 24 07:24 UTC] No.39394190{6}[source]▶
I was in trench few km from Avdiїvka for 2 weeks few days ago, and I can confirm that our artillery is out of ammunition. The silence of our artillery was horrible to listen. When we cannot use our drones because of fog, heavy snow, or strong wind, Russians are advancing because we have no shells enough to fire at them.