←back to thread

YC: Requests for Startups

(www.ycombinator.com)
514 points sarimkx | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.599s | source
Show context
Animats ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 The concept is already outdated anyway - just use a cheap drone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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
a_vanderbilt ◴[] No.39385491[source]
You can't immediately scale up manufacturing. People have to be trained, parts have to be procured, and facilities made available to build the things. Ramp-up takes months, and if you're lucky the product is well established already so you aren't stepping on landmines as you scale. I helped to restart a mothballed process for a military product once and I have stories that you wouldn't believe.
replies(1): >>39389117 #
dilyevsky ◴[] No.39389117[source]
You’re advocating general motors approach over tesla/spacex approach. Tesla is selling millions of evs every year now an gm, boeing and friends are with you making excuses about training people and their process
replies(1): >>39389961 #
a_vanderbilt ◴[] No.39389961[source]
I'm not advocating any approach. I'm telling you, as someone who has years of experience in the field of defense manufacturing, that one cannot force manufacturing processes into existence through sheer will. My posts on the topic are for the edification of whoever reads them, convincing anyone isn't my concern as ultimately it isn't HN comments that are going to change the situation. Maybe SpaceX should start making Javelins by the millions (:

For context btw: I oversaw the production of hundreds (if not into the thousands) of the Javelins we sent to Ukraine. Two of my coworkers were Ukrainian too. Do not mistake my brutal realism for a lack of caring about the situation.

replies(1): >>39394289 #
dilyevsky ◴[] No.39394289[source]
> that one cannot force manufacturing processes into existence through sheer will

That worked for russia but somehow doesn't work in the west?

I mostly lack experience in defense tech beyond being a user but ime it often doesn't work as well as the certificate (which probably cost a lot of effort to obtain) states it does. I'm of the opinion that we need to radically rethink our approach here if we hope to deter or withstand potential conflict with china in the next 10 years.

replies(3): >>39394914 #>>39394922 #>>39398307 #
1. hef19898 ◴[] No.39394914[source]
And now imagine how that stuff would work if certification requirements were lower.

Regarding China, I thought the same thing. Until Ukraine. Because as it turned out, that being at constant, if low intensity, war for basically all the time since Vietnam and Korea (at least since Gulf War 2 over Kuweit), really has benefits for the warfighting capability of countries. NATO, and especially the US, have that. Russia and China don't. And it shows, Russia didn't walz over Ukraine the way the West did over Iraq. And China has to deal with an amphibious invasion against a country that had decades to prepare for just that. Which leaves the question of supply lines across the pacific for a prolonged conflict. And there my money really is on western navies.

Just as a reminder, Russia is at a war economy by now, and still has to source from North Korea. All the while, NATO countries are just emptying stockpiles and slowly, maybe too slow, replenishing them. And despite that, all Russia got is a stalemate.

replies(1): >>39400345 #
2. lukan ◴[] No.39400345[source]
"Russia didn't walz over Ukraine the way the West did over Iraq"

Not really the same thing. Iraq was very low on quality military supplies with years of sanctions before that.

And Russia did walz over Georgia in 2008 and Russia would have walzed over Ukraine in 2014 (some russian military was enough to capture lots of ground back then). But much happened between 2014 and 2022.