4 ms·

Agreed, this seems like a huge problem and this > The startup’s most pertinent problem is creating the autonomous stabilization technologies that will make fly

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. Building a jet engine that's an order of magnitude better (cheaper, more reliable) than the industry has managed in 50 years, but with more or less the same tech? That's the kind of problem you can't just solve with machine learning.

rataata_jr 8y ago
Or that is untapped and can be solved.
blueboo 8y ago
> ... effortless and safe also the most pertinent problem with a thousand similarly idiotic ideas, from edible knives to jetpacks
dalbasal 8y ago
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 range. It was an important step on the way and proved that the real pertinent problem was affordable batteries. Not an easy problem, but still. There's probably some demand for flying motorcycles, even if they cost >€1m and are only good for 10 minutes of hovering over a lake. From there... who knows. I'm not sure flying cars a mass market idea even if they cost the same as rolling ones.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  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.
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    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.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      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.
  - farisjarrah 8y ago
    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.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Yes, very small turbines have a variety of military applications beyond just cruise missiles. Small turbine driven reusable drones are one possible application. I'm not sure if you're trying to imply it, but YC funding defense tech under the guise of funding toys for the ultra-wealthy would be interesting, but I don't honestly think that's what's going on here. I don't think they're likely to develop novel turbine technology, and the concept of a one-person turbine flying device left the US military unimpressed decades ago. There doesn't really seem to be a tactical niche for it on the battlefield.
- dmayman 8y ago
  If we can fly quickly AND safely and land within feet of an injured person and that makes a difference of them living or dying, isn’t that worth a shot?
SilasX 8y ago
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.
abock1 8y ago
Yes, you are completely correct! It is much more than software to solve this issue. It is so much different than self-leveling robots on a surface because we are floating in the air with no hard attachment point. We are currently going through multiple iterations on our 1:3 scale prototype so that we can dial in the stabilization systems so that we have the correct flight characteristics.
dmayman 8y ago
We 100% agree and base level stablization is what we spend most of our engineering time on - both software and mech. We are learning a heck of a lot from our 1/3rd scale model

rataata_jr 8y ago

Or that is untapped and can be solved.

blueboo 8y ago

> ... effortless and safe also the most pertinent problem with a thousand similarly idiotic ideas, from edible knives to jetpacks

dalbasal 8y ago

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 range. It was an important step on the way and proved that the real pertinent problem was affordable batteries. Not an easy problem, but still. There's probably some demand for flying motorcycles, even if they cost >€1m and are only good for 10 minutes of hovering over a lake. From there... who knows. I'm not sure flying cars a mass market idea even if they cost the same as rolling ones.

darkpuma 8y ago
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.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  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.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    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.
- farisjarrah 8y ago
  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.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Yes, very small turbines have a variety of military applications beyond just cruise missiles. Small turbine driven reusable drones are one possible application. I'm not sure if you're trying to imply it, but YC funding defense tech under the guise of funding toys for the ultra-wealthy would be interesting, but I don't honestly think that's what's going on here. I don't think they're likely to develop novel turbine technology, and the concept of a one-person turbine flying device left the US military unimpressed decades ago. There doesn't really seem to be a tactical niche for it on the battlefield.
dmayman 8y ago
If we can fly quickly AND safely and land within feet of an injured person and that makes a difference of them living or dying, isn’t that worth a shot?

SilasX 8y ago

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.

abock1 8y ago

Yes, you are completely correct! It is much more than software to solve this issue. It is so much different than self-leveling robots on a surface because we are floating in the air with no hard attachment point. We are currently going through multiple iterations on our 1:3 scale prototype so that we can dial in the stabilization systems so that we have the correct flight characteristics.

dmayman 8y ago

We 100% agree and base level stablization is what we spend most of our engineering time on - both software and mech. We are learning a heck of a lot from our 1/3rd scale model