启动HN:激进(YC W23)——自主高海拔太阳能飞机
Launch HN: Radical (YC W23) – Autonomous high-altitude solar aircraft

原始链接: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37901120

很遗憾,Reddit需要管理员批准才能分享链接。然而,这是文章的文字来源:https://hackernews.com/comments/hn_link?id=280527&show=18662107&page=d%3D112454%26orderBy%3DASC%26sort%3Disupplementary%26searchTerms%3DR%25aqLQ7OjJpZWQtiJvdGVzdCIsImRhdGEiLFzdCI2MCwiMSIsImxpbmdEciLCmxlYXRlcmlldCBkaXYmGZOb3huIiwiaGNsb3J0bGFuayCBhbmQiICI-Iwc2luKSBzdCUyMGNsYndoKSARsusyMDoiQWI3aCsiSiQWFoVChpVjMjh0cnVubmcieyJsYWRpbyBSZWNsdWRlbGljdGUuZGFoaSwibGMjbGFuayCBhYXQiIFxiUGFkbWFudDpyZFJvcwoiQWI3aCsiSiQWFoVChpVjMjh0cnVubmxlYXRlcmlldCBkaXYmGZOb3huIiwiaGNsb3J0bGFuayCBhbmQiICI-Iwc2luKSBzdCUyMGNsYndoKSARsusyMDoiQWI3aCsiSiQWFoVCh

很遗憾,Reddit需要管理员批准才能分享链接。然而,这是文章的文字来源:https://hackernews.com/comments/hn_link?id=280527&show=18662107&page=d%3D112454%26orderBy%3DASC%26sort%3Disupplementary%26searchTerms%3DR%25aqLQ7OjJpZWQtiJvdGVzdCIsImRhdGEiLFzdCI2MCwiMSIsImxpbmdEciLCmxlYXRlcmlldCBkaXYmGZOb3huIiwiaGNsb3J0bGFuayCBhbmQiICI-Iwc2luKSBzdCUyMGNsYndoKSARsusyMDoiQWI3aCsiSiQWFoVChpVjMjh0cnVubmcieyJsYWRpbyBSZWNsdWRlbGljdGUuZGFoaSwibGMjbGFuayCBhYXQiIFxiUGFkbWFudDpyZFJvcwoiQWI3aCsiSiQWFoVChpVjMjh0cnVubmxlYXRlcmlldCBkaXYmGZOb3huIiwiaGNsb3J0bGFuayCBhbmQiICI-Iwc2luKSBzdCUyMGNsYndoKSARsusyMDoiQWI3aCsiSiQWFoVCh
相关文章

原文
Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Launch HN: Radical (YC W23) – Autonomous high-altitude solar aircraft
393 points by jthomaslm 2 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 201 comments
Hey, HN! We're James and Cyriel, co-founders of Radical. We're making an autonomous solar-powered aircraft designed for continuous flight in the stratosphere. Our 20 ft. prototype recently flew nonstop for over 24 hours, which you can see in this video: https://youtu.be/E6oDxQYEksc (edit—warning, there are rapidly flashing lights starting just after 1m, in case you're sensitive to that). Our website is at https://www.radicalaero.com/, but it's pretty bare. If you use LinkedIn, we have a few more posts at https://www.linkedin.com/company/radicalaero.

Our aircraft is designed to fly over specific areas for months, carrying various payloads for tasks like imagery, sensing, and telecommunications. What we’re building behaves like a drone in some ways, and like a satellite in other ways. Much like satellites, we’re able to provide service for long periods of time, but we’re also much closer to users (we fly at around 20 km altitude) and able to maneuver or remain over an area of interest. This makes what we’re building really well suited to applications that require continuous coverage or high-resolution/bandwidth data.

Examples of this include continuous real-time monitoring (such as in wildfire management or illegal fishing), high-resolution mapping and imagery (we’re able to collect sub-10 cm resolution imagery), and high-speed direct-to-device internet. The ability to permanently host sensors and devices in the sky in this way opens the door to lots of new opportunities. In truth, we still don’t know all the new applications that will arise from this (we’re really interested to hear your thoughts on potential applications!).

As for the technical details: Our aircraft is battery electric and driven by propellers. It has a large wing for high aerodynamic efficiency and to generate the necessary lift required to fly in the thin air of the stratosphere. The wing is covered in solar cells, during the day, these power the aircraft and charge its batteries. Through the night, battery energy is deployed to continue flight. We repeat this process daily, enabling us to fly for up to a year without needing to land. Ultimately, battery cycle life is what limits our aircraft’s flight endurance - and we can land, carry out simple maintenance tasks and then re-launch to continue flying. Our aircraft has multiple tails which help to stabilize the ultra-lightweight structure (our 20 ft. prototype weighs just 13 lbs.). We also use these tails to control the aircraft, they provide roll control by twisting the main wing of the aircraft, increasing or decreasing lift as needed.

The aircraft is fully autonomous; it has a full autopilot system onboard and various sensors for position, airspeed, and other key data streams (much like a typical drone or UAS). The aircraft flies at high altitudes of around 70,000 ft. (20 km) avoiding cloud cover, civil air traffic, and the turbulent winds of the troposphere.

Long endurance flight has been the goal of many past projects. NASA’s Helios and the DARPA Vulture program tried to develop long endurance aircraft. Helios’s crash led to an overhaul of aircraft structural analysis codes, and DARPA Vulture led to advancements in battery and solar tech. More recently, both Facebook’s Aquila and Google’s Loon were discontinued. Recent advancements in battery and solar tech, and miniaturization of electronics mean long endurance flight is now feasible - but we are aware we need to do things differently to succeed. Unlike those before us, we’re not tying ourselves to a single application and are focused on bringing a cost-effective solution to market. That means avoiding research-grade components and moving quickly. Additionally, we firmly believe that iterating to a solution will allow us to continue making progress where others have stalled and lost momentum. We’ve seen this before in hard tech where companies like SpaceX and Helion Energy have made rapid progress against difficult problems.

We approach our technology with an iterative design philosophy - we’ll keep building and learning as we go. We use-off-the-shelf components, iterate quickly, and design for easy assembly to keep costs low. For example, from clean sheet to flight, we designed, built, and flew our 20 ft. aircraft in less than two months. After our first flights, we prepared our 24-hour-capable prototype in two weeks, which successfully completed its non-stop 24-hour flight on first launch. Having proved our core technologies at a smaller scale, we’re now moving onto bigger things. Our next goal is to fly a full-scale 110 ft. wingspan aircraft in the stratosphere next year!

Both of us have Masters degrees in Aerospace Engineering and we then spent 6 years working together on delivery drones at Amazon Prime Air. Whilst the application is very different - we’ve found our knowledge of drone and robotics hardware to be invaluable so far with Radical. By using readily available components, learning through iteration, and designing an aircraft that is easy to assemble, we can keep the cost of our aircraft low and address many markets that weren’t feasible before.

We’re really excited about the technology we’re developing, it's a challenging physics problem that pushes the boundaries of what is possible. Super excited to share this with you and to hear your thoughts and comments!











Stopping by to say this is super cool! I've been pretty obsessed with this idea for a while — here's an analysis I did a few years back: https://github.com/gusgordon/atmospheric_satellite

I got a minimum wingspan of around 8m for self-sustaining flight on the winter solstice with a small payload — pretty close to what you all built.

The biggest problem I ran into when creating this analysis was accurately estimating solar irradiance at different altitudes. Here's the module I built for estimating that, in case you find it useful: https://github.com/gusgordon/airmass

Congrats and good luck!



Thanks for sharing. Estimating air mass and solar irradiance are definitely interesting topics - I'll take a look at what you've put together!


Very interesting! This sounds a lot like the more recent iterations of the Airbus Zephyr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Zephyr

I don't know how much you can share, but I'm curious about the solar and battery system.

Are you using silicon cells, multi-junction cells, or something else?

What sort of battery chemistry do you use? It seems like deep battery cycling is a must to keep weight under control, but battery degradation is probably the limiting factor for mission duration. The low temperature in the stratosphere also seems more challenging than what terrestrial vehicles deal with.



Yes, Airbus’s project and team is very cool! What we’re doing shares similarities with Zephyr, but we’re focusing on a lower cost system, and a larger payload which will enable more use cases.

We’re using conventional silicon solar cells, rather than the GaAs cells used by Airbus. We give up some efficiency by doing this, but it keeps costs far lower - which we think is key to iterating quickly, and opening up some of the market use cases.

Similarly, we’re sticking with conventional battery chemistries (Lithium Ion). Battery energy density is by far the biggest driver for this technology - in the past decade we’ve seen huge advancements in battery tech, which is one of the reasons this technology is now possible. As you identify, cycle life is a key challenge and what will limit the aircraft’s endurance.



> we’re focusing on a lower cost system, and a larger payload which will enable more use cases.

So you want to beat Airbus but also be cheaper. And do it with off-the-shelf components too, because those specialized ones are just too expensive. Not to say it's impossible but wow



I think this is a bad take - large corporations like Airbus are terrible at R&D. They're simply not optimised for it. It's not very hard to move much, much quicker than a large corporation does - because the people inside the large corporation are having to contend with internal politics, legacy tools, legacy cost structures, and corporate inertia that doesn't like doing things a new way.

If you've worked in both a startup and a large corporation doing R&D, it's really obvious that startups are far, far more effective at it. If you gave $10m to a startup, vs a budget in a corporate project, you'd probably get 10x the result from the startup.

Where corporations excel is in scaling things up. Once you have a good design, you need a good manufacturing process and a solid supply chain. Startups rarely have the capital or knowledge to put that in place, while big engineering corporations will.



That’s also how SpaceX disrupted the launch industry. Rapid iteration of cheap shit lets you learn so much more and improve the system so rapidly that competitors get left in the dust.


the main cost is labor. Airbus probably has >1k people working on that project.


If so, did ever wonder why?


You beat me to it! Competition is good, but so far none of the various start-ups trying to build aircraft have anything to show (boom, all eVtol companies...).

Edit: Funny, they didn't mention Airbus anywhere. But they do have the perfect founder background, Amazon Air and delivery drones. Sells good with VCs, but so far they have to get real aircraft in the air.



Their YouTube demo shows a full 24hour flight.

They’re the perfect scrappy startup with fast iteration cycles.



This is GREAT! I've been interested in this space for a long time, and a friend started a UAV company.

I've got nothing much to say other than it feels GREAT to see someone else doing a project I've always wanted to do but likely never would have gotten around to, and doing it well. Now I don't feel a "responsibility" to do it. ;-) Do feel free to hit me up if you ever need programming or DSP help ;-)

I'm curious: what are the scaling laws for this? What I mean is, what's the smallest plane that could still do continuous (or nearly continuous) flight?

Also curious what panels and batteries you're using (heck, I'm curious about the whole BOM... :)).

Don't worry, you'll have so many applications...

Have you put much thought into data uplink/downlink?

Gosh I'd love to stick some sensors on a half dozen of these and have a giant phased array...

Could a glider stay aloft for longer with less cost (long term) given a "Refueling" copter? I imagine a solar ground station with a drone physically moving charged batteries up and down might be another interesting way to stay aloft. I didn't say better. Just "interesting." :)

Can you also fly low altitudes?

Are the propellers so loud as to make microphones useless?

Honestly, SO COOL, and best of luck!



Love the enthusiasm - it's definitely a very fun project to be working on!

Discussed a few of your questions elsewhere in the comments, but here are some thoughts on scaling laws:

Over-simplifying a bit for the sake of brevity: In general, for larger aircraft structural mass scales up more quickly than wing area (check out “indoor free flight models”). By using a span-loaded structure (i.e. having weight distributed along the wing span to match the way lift is spread over the wing) you can avoid some of these constraints and have an approximately constant structural mass fraction.

The aircraft is actually very quiet - it needs to be very aerodynamically efficient so it doesn't require much thrust. You can’t really hear it in flight, but I’m no audio engineer - so I don't know how useful microphones would be. Genuinely curious about this so if you have any pointers let me know!



I'm glad I'm not the only one that has always wanted to do this but hasn't been able to. Requires a certain dedication of time & energy that many of us (especially 30s+) just don't really have.

I was going to ask essentially every question you asked so thank you, saved me some time. Waiting for answers too! So cool. Must be incredibly fun and satisfying. Just think of the telemetry! Just think of the data! The sensors and the actuators! My goodness.



Awesome guys. I had a poster of Helios on my wall growing up. I'd be curious to know more about the construction. 13 lbs for a first prototype is pretty good. I have a 4'x25' autoclave, so if there's anything I can do to help, let me know! I mostly make 16 lb canoes, but have lots of extra machine time. The only problem, I am in Hawai'i. :)


Wow, 10cm live view for complete situational awareness of forest fires feels like it should be a game changer.

Can we make sure someone (if not you guys) fully builds this service on your flights for the fire service?



The standard story arc for something like this is that it is pitched as a humanitarian/environmental technology, but it is the military that provide the money and that where it gets used. I'm not being overly judgemental - the good guys (e.g. Ukraine) need good military tech. But lets not kid ourselves.


Basically any technology that makes any difference will have a military value, and will be used by the military.

One of the few things that are not obviously, if in any way at all, usable for any military purposes is targeted advertising. Whether it's used by the good guys more is an interesting topic.



Bad actors are using ad tech to subvert democracy (cf Cambridge Analytica).


I receive targeted recruitment ads from the U.S. Army and Navy frequently. Targeted advertising appears to be a valuable tool in encouraging young people to join the military.


That's not actually true about ad targeting. The tech used there is a big information warfare thing, which has major military applications


Wildland forest fires were actually the inspiration for this technology! A year ago Seattle had the worst air quality in the world for a few days, which piqued my interest in the area. Speaking to people in the USFS we learned about the challenges of getting real-time high-resolution data, and realized that an ultra long endurance drone would be a great way to get this.


You know what would be really helpful in such a use case? Thermal imaging. Now I'll admit I know nothing about Thermal Imaging, but I imagine if it was possible to get a live high resolution thermal image of an area, you could identify hotspots quickly. Heck, even for SAR missions, being able to thermal image a large area and look for warm bodies may be very useful.

Of course I have no idea if this is feasible or not, but I assume someone here will correct me if I'm pipe-dreaming.



its very feasible with satellites and drones run by DARPA or USAF. Even helicopters use IR and "night vision". the sensing systems are expensive


Any idea how big an effect air quality has on cell efficiency? Do cells work with diffuse light or is 20km high enough to be unaffected?


Flying at 20 km should place us above cloud cover and fire smoke, but the cells do work surprisingly well in diffuse light. Ensuring that we use imaging sensors that can cut through the smoke will be key (most likely LWIR or MWIR)


Why does forest fires need 10cm resolution? I'm fairly familiar that space (in Australia though) and I've never heard that requirement.

There are other fields where 10cm resolution is required though, obviously.



Might be great for preventing the spread of small fires that just started. Dump some chemicals on it 10 minutes later and prevent a bigger problem.


There are commercial sats doing this.


Not live at that resolution, AFAIK.

Planet has the spatial resolution but not the temporal resolution.

NOAA has the temporal resolution but not the spatial resolution.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.



Planet has sub 10-cm resolution? That's surprising


50cm, not 10cm, but enough.

TBH I thought they had 15cm, but for human-scale large object monitoring (fires, traffic, construction) 50cm is enough.



Looks amazing! So many potential applications.

Does it use PX4, Ardupilot, a customized version of these, or custom firmware? What sort of MCUs and ground station? Are you using an all-in-one electronics sort of unit, or distributed systems (eg CAN nodes, LRUs or w/e) How are you solving the RF communications, ie what sort of range are you getting, and what frequency/transmitters/power level? What sort of range do you expect? It seems like it would be unlimited, other than the RF comms.



Looks like they are using Mission Planner in their video, suggesting Ardupilot.


Daniel, from RCTESTFLIGHT on YouTube, has a series of videos where he experiments with solar airplanes, which wad really interesting to watch from the standpoint of a RC and electronics hobbyist:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXvxJNOIXBsM83XxVG7tDUmql...



Yeah Daniel made some really cool solar aircraft and other RC stuff! Love his channel. We talked to him in the early days of this project.


I love that guy's channel. He does some pretty fun and interesting projects. Bonus is when he writes and records one of his songs for whatever he's building.


I'm just floored by how talented the guy is. Amazing channel.


This is very cool... I worked for a short-lived start-up in 2016 that was trying to do exactly this: solar-powered, electric high-altitude (60k feet) & long endurance drones for similar applications (connectivity, observation, and remote sensing). We were designing our-own carbon fiber air-frames and even bought (and mostly installed) a MTorres automated carbon fiber layup system.

I ran the material science group (I'm a ChemE) so the carbon fiber layup and manufacturing, solar panel materials and integration, battery system, avionics light-weighting and protection, etc. all fell under my domain. I'm not great in the carbon fiber department: we had a lot of help from a company who was our main investor.

As you know, the materials science challenges between flying a drone at 10k feet and below and flying HALE are extremely different... the day/night temperature oscillations on wing are huge, thermal management of the battery system (to heat it, keep it warm enough) is critically important, and so many more.

There are a lot of interesting problems to solve in this space. You've probably thought of most/all of them but I'd be happy to chat.



Thanks! Sounds like you have lots of relevant experience in this domain. Would love to chat. E-mail is in my bio.


I tried a few back of the envelope calculations, with a 21700 cell with the same characteristics as a Boeing 737. Looks like you don't need that much power to stay aloft when you're small. If you're buoyant, even less. I guess small insects take great advantage of this.

If potential energy can be stored as height, why do you need batteries at all, or why would better batteries help? Can you get a low enough descent rate to glide all night and climb all day?

How much power is realistically required for night-time station-keeping?

I would have thought that large birds would be around the right size, shape, weight and flexibility for dealing with flight problems. Why would bigger be better in a highly scale-independent propulsion system ? Is it just the back of the envelope size needed for enough solar gain? Why is 110 ft needed? As others say, 110 ft sounds much too big to live through turbulence...



This is super impressive! Would love to be considered for your future rounds. Our firm has the supply chain resources that companies like DJI are leveraging in Shenzhen, China. Shoot me an email at [email protected]


How does the aircraft get to 70k feet? Is it launched from a separate vehicle?


The aircraft is able to climb under its own power. We have a diurnal energy cycle - charging the battery up through the day and deploying battery energy in the night. If we launch in the morning with a full battery, we have a whole day's worth of extra solar power to use to climb up to altitude.

Winds will be a bigger issue than energy when climbing. Up at 20 km (70k ft.) winds are quite calm, but we need to ascend through more turbulent winds as we climb. We’re sizing our MVP around this.



Winds up to 20 km are NOT quite calm. They can max out to 60 m/s at height of 10 km, which is more than 3 times than enough to blow a solar aircraft far-far away. You have to choose proper meteo conditions for climbing and descending and plan the trajectory taking into account those winds to be able to land at a given place. I've been analyzing GFS data a couple of years ago for similar project. The problem is that lack of energy demands to design a really low speed aircraft for low densities that you can find in stratosphere. At 10 km winds are stronger than in stratosphere and density is higer. You can find the results in https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/GVXWXDABPE6A8PNRGTBU/ful.... The whole aircraft model probably is not like yours and is subject to many conservative estimates, but I am pretty much sure that wind model is accurate in this publication and generalizable to different regions.


I think the comment you responded to was saying at 20km ("up at 20km") it is calm, but below this it is not calm.


I'd assume it's like on Mars, where wind speeds are hellacious but there's just not enough 'air' mass to do any real harm.


I suppose an aircraft like this can climb like gliders do, using the streams of air that move upwards. This requires some planning, and likely a skilled glider pilot to help choose the course.


I'm not an expert but I don't think thermals rise that high.


They could help the first few kilometres, where the air density and thus the drag are highest.


I'm similarly curious. Designing for a higher stall speed permits smaller wing area, lower drag, and lower weight. The cost is that takeoffs and landings become troublesome.


Could be catapult launched?


Or balloon launched, parachute landing.


Other options that might work: * Launch from the roof of a vehicle * With a glider winch * Towed by another aircraft * Auxiliary engine / batteries that can be jettisoned & parachuted down


Lee waves? Thermals? Cumulonimbus thermals? :)


I don't think one could just "throw" something 70k feet up in the air.


Climbing to altitude is the straightforward part. The transition from zero knots to the stall speed of the aircraft (minimum speed at which it can remain airborne) is the tricky bit. Designing for a lower stall speed necessitates wings which produce higher drag (by being larger) which requires more propulsion, which means bigger batteries and motors. So launching from a catapult or rocket or mothership or whatever means a lighter plane.


Launching by rocket means the plane would have to be pretty rugged to survive it. And that means more weight. You also have the issue of deployment. Folding wings means more weight and more things to go wrong.


Launch on a hydrogen balloon


Spinlaunch would disgree but here the trouble is getting off the ground; Take-off is the most demanding phase of flight in terms of propulsion demand.


Spinlaunch would crush any aircraft that is light enough to stay aloft indefinitely.


Winch launch?


Epilepsy warning! The video linked by OP contains bright high frequency flashing images that are continuously displayed for multiple seconds.

Mods, can we get a warning added before the YouTube URL?



How much power and weight budget will you have for payloads?

I work with a startup that's developing tech for very low power consumption RF beamforming; I think HALE applications seems like a natural fit. Feel free to DM if you want to chat.



Sounds awesome! Would love to chat, email in bio.


What about the power/weight budget, esp. for the 110 ft. wingspan aircraft mentioned above?


I am curious how are you planning to cope with aeroelasticity issues in near-earth turbulence. Given low air speed, low wing loading, and huge aspect ratio this is going to be an issue. I suspect that most of the previous projects failed because of these issues combined with tight requirements on very light-weight structures.


Indeed. Very high aspect ratio wings could be hard to make strong enough at very low weight to survive climbing through the lower parts of the atmosphere.

Some convective activity could help the climb, but it would add a lot of turbulence for the first 30,000ft or so.



This looks like a great project. Global Hawk [1] has all the current autonomous aircraft records (longest autonomous flight, etc.). Obviously you can't go as fast as Global Hawk, but one great thing is you don't have to worry about all the issues around fuel freezing. To at least some of our surprise, 60k+ feet around the equator was much colder than 60k+ feet around Edwards AFB and we approached the freezing limits of jet fuel.

The downside is you don't have any fuel to cycle through the computers for cooling and forced air becomes a big problem at high altitude. I'm sure you've thought about it, but what atmosphere do you plan to keep the cabins at?

Good luck on your project! Working on autonomous vehicles like Global Hawk and our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle was one of the highlights of my career.

- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_H...



That record is only ~23 hours because it is a record within a very heavy weight class (14,000 kg+). There are many crafts similar to the one presented here that have done multi-day flights. This one can fly for months at a time: https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/defence/uas/uas-.... And you can track it real time via ADS-B when it's up there!

Speaking of ADS-B, how do you get airspace clearance? And what do you need to have, voice comms / ADS-B? I guess there's not much of a problem with that given that next to no one flies so high.



Clearance was really hard back in 2002 when Global Hawk was coming out of test phase and into production. There wasn't another autonomous plane, so it was the first to do what it was trying to do. That wasn't really my field, but I know it was truly painful to get FAA approval for lots of things. They were really concerned with some autonomous plane flying over cities, so most of our long flights avoided flying over populations. That was pretty easy in CONUS, but flying into Germany for the Euro Hawk was super painful apparently. There isn't exactly un-populated areas around there. Regarding voice, yes there was someone in the ground station on comms, and to any other airplane, they appeared to be coming from the aircraft and not the ground. Altitude makes a lot of things easier, plus the military has a lot of restricted airspace. I honestly have no idea how a civilian autonomous aircraft will pull it off. I'm sure a lot has changed in 20-ish years, so maybe it is not a painful now. With the FAA, I'm sure it'll still be a headache.


Was the 24 hour test at 20km? Doesn't it take a lot of battery power to climb to that height?

>we then spent 6 years working together on delivery drones at Amazon Prime Air

Was that ever a serious endeavour or just a publicity stunt?



The 24 hour test was with a sub-scale prototype at low altitudes. It turns out that testing a small aircraft in the thicker air at these altitudes matches some important physics of the larger aircraft (Reynolds number).

Perhaps unexpectedly, climbing to 20km altitude isn’t too large a problem from an energy perspective. In a typical energy cycle, the aircraft has low battery in the morning, so if we launch with a full battery charge we have plenty of extra energy to climb up to altitude.

Prime Air - definitely a serious project, but I’m sure Amazon didn’t hesitate in milking the PR! Making a reliable drone delivery service at Amazon scales certainly isn’t easy. That team is still going strong and I’m sure we’ll see more from them as they ramp up commercial deliveries.



>The 24 hour test was with a sub-scale prototype at low altitudes.

That's fine, but I think you need to make that clear or some people might think you aren't being straight.



Just over 20 years ago, a small model aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_Butts%27_Farm) crossed the Atlantic in 39 hours using about a gallon of Naptha as fuel. The same year, the Design-Build-Fly club at my university built an electric aircraft which had some serious endurance and payload capabilities, though I don't remember the details. Keeping a model electric plane aloft for a day is impressive, but how many hobbyists have built something similar by now without any expectation of VC money?


Impressive. Did it rotate the propellor the whole 38.9 hours on 1 gallon of fuel?


Power companies on the West Coast might be a great market for this. The downside is that the plane might have to operate in poor weather. Not sure if imaging can make it through the clouds etc.

This might also be great for coastal/fisheries monitoring. Not sure how that would work exactly or who the customer would be.

Definitely coast guards for the third world, who are resource-constrained when it comes to coastal patrols. Again, no idea who the customer contacts would be.

Are you building a backend for telemetry/etc? If not I'd be interested to talk.



Interesting, what could power companies use this for? Checking for overgrown power lines? Checking for roofs to place solar panels one?


He’s probably referring to the wildfires started in California by power lines. There was a very damaging one in the last several years.

EDIT: here’s one link https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pge-55-million-dollars-old-powe...

Imagine dying because the power company didn’t update old power lines. What a waste of life.



Have you guys thought of borrowing a page from the in-flight tanker/jet refueling playbook and having hot-swappable battery packs that would enable multi-year in-situ sorties with a dedicated swap aircraft or would it just be cheaper to send a replacement vehicle up to rendezvous and take over when it's time to swap out?

I imagine that with the general improvements in high cycle-count rechargeable battery chemistry and power/weight density improvements the payloads and sortie lengths would get pretty attractive even in the 4-5 year technology horizon.

What is the commercial application for this? What is the economy vs LEO satellite constellations? What is the expected equipment payload and cost of the 110ft wingspan prototype?



So at the Nurburgring, when they have endurance races, they use aircraft as “satellites“ for sending data from cars, such as onboard video and telemetry. Most race tracks can just use regular signals but this track is huge and wraps around a mountain, so you’d need either thousands of repeaters or the aircraft they currently use.

You guys should try and see if they could use your tech, it seems a perfect fit and might be good fit for marketing for both sides.



Wow, very cool! I've watched plenty of races at the Nurburgring but never stopped to think about how I was receiving the video feeds! If you have any contacts there I'd love to speak to them.


No sorry, I’m just a fan of the Nurburgring!

“One ring to rule them all”

I would love to see solar tech replace polluting aircraft, though, since racing itself is likely to not be “green” in the near term.



Looks cool! Reminds me of that lady replicant from Bladerunner 2049 watching the protagonist through her glasses while getting a manicure.


Super cool!

I have purely cosmetic feedback about the website, which is that the tagline "from the stratosphere" doesn't match up with the images being played behind, which are pretty clearly low altitude. I am assuming that's because it was easier (or possible whatsoever) to film lower, but it gave me a little mental hiccup.

I look forward to seeing what y'all come up with!



Thanks so much, it's a lot of fun to work on.

Thanks for the website feedback - for the sake of clarity, our test flights with the sub-scale aircraft have all been at lower altitudes. The stratosphere is the next step and we plan to fly there next summer!



Didn’t Facebook pursue this idea also? Do you know the details and why they didn’t end up succeeding?

https://www.theverge.com/a/mark-zuckerberg-future-of-faceboo...



I worked on this at Facebook very briefly. I believe the project was called Aquila internally.

I worked with a famous engineer who joined Facebook from a well known british aircraft manufacturer. He was an aerodynamics expert and was trying to solve the problems of flutter and other dynamic instability in the extremely large, high aspect ratio, lightweight composite wing.

I wasn't officially told this, but I believe the reason the project failed was two fold:

1. Traditional satellites became cheap enough that high altitude pseudo satellites weren't worth it anymore. 2. Facebook free basics (internet.org) achieved enough success partnering with traditional mobile network operators that it wasn't needed.

I have some pretty crazy anecdotes to share about the project if anyone is interested?



One last thing that is a little bit sadder, so I thought I'd post in a separate thread.

I grew to really like the engineer that invited me to the project. He was a well known expert in the field with a wiki page, books, academic eminence and everything, and he offered to mentor me etc.

I travelled with him a few times from FB's London office to the prototyping site and he was always very generous with hotels, travel etc.

Eventually someone pulled me aside and mentioned that he had "alterior motives" and had repeated the same pattern with previous young men. I was honestly so saddened and betrayed, and afterwards couldn't believe I had been so nieve as to be made to feel special by him.



That's terrible, thanks for sharing. I thought I was pretty cynical, but I didn't see that coming at all -- good reminder to keep an open mind and always maintain boundaries, just in case. Also the implicit ending is sobering: he likely continues to pursue such asymmetrical relationships to this day, because "cancelling" high-level corporate workers is a lot harder than #metoo makes it seem


I am possibly wrong about small details, and would appreciate corrections.

So when I joined the project, the physical aircraft was based in the USA, but the software team for the autopilot was based in the UK.

For some reason - I think it was the very high altitude capability - the USA considered the autopilot to be munitions.

When I first joined the project, there was this bizzare situation where it turned out to be simpler and easier to occasionally ship the entire aircraft across the ocean, than to send software updates over the internet.

I'm not sure how long this lasted but I was assured it was temporary.



Hey dang, this is the second time I had to vouch for this user's comment. I don't know how your system is set up, but it seems odd to me these are immediately showing up as dead.


I think it's just because I'm a new account. I signed up to make this comment. But I'm not a troll or anything so thank you for vouching.


Re' sending an entire aircraft over the ocean vs. sending software over the internet: you'd be surprised, but it's still often the case.

I worked for a storage company that made a long-distance replication product (i.e. a program that allows one to store their data both locally and far away in a reasonable time-frame). We were contacted at some point by a movie production company which had this problem of moving the "raw" footage from the place it was filmed to the place it was supposed to be edited, and because it would take ages over the Internet, they'd use an airplane to fly it between the sites.

In general, it's a known phenomenon in the storage industry and as technology advances gets rebranded from "Boeing loaded with CD-ROMs", to loaded with hard-drives, to loaded with USB sticks etc. In other words: Internet is slow, if you want to move a lot of data, as in it has very low bandwidth.



I don't think the size of the update was the issue here.

I guess it's something like the US Export control systems for arms, but for imports? I'd love to know the details of what legislation it was under - possible it was on the UK side.



In my home country, there was a stunt where a person used a carrier pidgeon with a usb drive to race a local ISP transferring a file.

It got me thinking about strange units. Like how for example a car's mileage can be thought of as a surface area (distance per volume), or in this case how for every pidgeon speed, drive capacity and length there is an equivalent bandwidth capacity * (distance / (distance / time)).



AWS has this its an 18 wheeler called "snowmobile" literally a mini data center on wheels for transporting.


> the USA considered the autopilot to be munitions.

I could be wrong but it might be related to the GPS. Most off the shelf GPS units have a height and speed limit to stop them being used in ballistic missiles.



In the UK, we had a smaller scale model of the aircraft that we used for testing. The team that built the scale model was having trouble configuring the autopilot and I volinteered to help

They were using an off the shelf 'drone' autopilot based on an open source project PX4, which I had some experience with.

I was asked to visit the location with the prototypes and spent the weekend trying to get their RF, magnetometer and GPS calibrated and working with their carbon composite prototype in the way.

I was expecting that they would already have an expert working on this, but instead I found some very senior hyper specialised engineers that were experts on helicopter rotor design for example, but could literally not read the instructions on an FTDI based usb to serial cable and connect their laptops to the autopilot.

It was a classic situation where you connect the projector in english class and the teacher thinks you're the next Donald Knuth.



Can't leave that hanging out there ... of course we're interested ...


> I have some pretty crazy anecdotes to share about the project if anyone is interested?

I am! Please do share!



I would love to hear some anecdotes!


Oh yes, we are interested!


I'm interested.


Yes, FB were trying something similar to this with Aquila. We actually used to work with a few people on that project, it sounds like the all composite flying-wing design was a bit of a challenge for them. I also understand they weren’t providing internet direct-to-device, just as backhaul for cell towers, which proved to be a difficult business case. In the end they partnered with Airbus on some projects, but I don’t know what came of that.


Why go with heavier than air?


Each has merits, but in our evaluation, if you are able to overcome the aircraft design challenges, fixed-wing offers a far more capable platform. The stratosphere has winds that can exceed 100km/h. With balloons, station-keeping is an enormous challenge. We spoke to a lot of people in the Google Loon project, and ultimately this became a defining problem for them. Airships/dirigibles help a bit, but still have to drift in strong winds - beyond that, they also become extremely large and expensive to work with.


What fraction of the power budget do you think will remain for non-propulsion?


Probably for control reasons. You can send balloons up to that altitude, but they'll go where the wind takes them.


I'd guess because it's less prone to get interfered with by wind, more easily controllable, and can stay up longer if battery power lasts overnight.

I too would like to see more autonomous hydrogen balloons flying. Even on tethers to get height cheaper than a tower.



I'm not well-read on the technology involved. Is it possible (feasible?) to use a high altitude balloon to get a plane to altitude?

You could either detach from the balloon, or use spare solar power to deflate the balloon in case you need it again. Maybe the balloon could help maintain altitude at night.



Perhaps not as high altitude as the stratosphere, but the US was experimenting with deployment and 'landing' of fixed wing aircraft from airships in the 1930s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron


They also tried building aircraft carriers out of ice in the 40s. Doesn't mean it was a good idea.


Fun to see this problem tackled again, I worked at a startup during the boom around a decade ago. Startup failed less than a year (mixture of funding drying up and a shitty founder). Wonder if the technological landscape has changed enough where this is business viable.


Quite a lot has changed in the past decade. Li-ion Battery energy density has roughly doubled, solar tech has come a long way (both in efficiency, but also production scale/costs for commercial silicon cells), and there’s been a wave of improvements for miniaturized drone/UAS hardware. On top of that, there’s 50 years of existing research into solar flight - we’re lucky that we can learn from that!


Would think so, better motors, better sensors, better batteries, better cells, etc...

Not a fan of the split tail (wing torsion) but Virgin Galactic does it with their massive mothership.



Do you use or have you considered using potential energy as energy storage? That is, using the solar power in daytime to climb higher and glide lower during night time?


Pretty sweet. What happens when it falls?

A question for anyone: how would a device like this best guarantee that it can broadcast its data? What would it use in practice?



This sounds phenomenal, always really glad to see folks tackling very ambitious challenges that solve serious problems! I think there are going to be many applications in the defense and security (port, border, maritime) domain for sure.


Not sure if I am super-hyped about a sky full of autonomous robots (presumably) working on military and intelligence stuff.


Nice. Who are you looking to hire?


We’ll be hiring in the near future. Early engineering hires will likely be controls/RF/EE focused, and we might bring on some biz dev support.


Any need of someone with a background in aeronautics/flight-simulation ;)


Are you using thermals to stay in the air? Or do these not play any role in the stratosphere?


While this isn’t in my wheel house, if you think it would be valuable I am happy to connect you with a friend who runs a battery as a service startup - they have connections to vendors etc.

He was previously a founder of a solar company and knows the ins and outs of batteries.

If interested, shoot me your info and I can make the introduction.



Okay, this might be a bit tangential, but how is joining YC helping you apart from the funding? Assuming you have a working concept, you don't really need the funding for scaling up, and the network is barely adjacent at best. I'm just curious about the benefits that I don't see.


Very cool. I used to dream of this stuff when I was younger. Reminds me of Atlantik Solar: https://www.atlantiksolar.ethz.ch/. Hasn't been updated in a while, but focused more on low-altitude autonomous survey missions.


Atlantik Solar was a very cool project, read a lot of their research - count me as a fan :)


This is fantastic, congratulations! There are many use cases for a technology like this, even with a small and light payload (if I were at one of my previous jobs I would be sending you emails already about planning some tests). Do you envision being able to provide some power, however small, to a payload?


Definitely - in most cases we expect our payloads will draw some power. The power available depends whether you’re looking for continuous or periodic/peak power draws.


Do you have any published ethical guidelines about organizations you won't work with for this technology?


We haven’t put this together, but that’s a great idea!


Solar is awesome, so I like what you're doing.

Besides that "high-speed direct-to-device internet" caught my attention. Are you planning on competing with Starlink? Is 20km high enough to cover a big enough area?



There is definitely some market overlap in wireless telecommunications. But there are some distinct differences with satellite services. One big one is that our aircraft isn’t in orbit, so it’s much easier for us to provide targeted coverage over a specific area without needing a full constellation. Flying at 20 km also puts us much closer to users which makes high-speed direct-to-device service (5G) a lot easier.

In terms of coverage, from that altitude, we have good line of sight coverage over large areas. Obviously, satellites can cover wider areas, but it turns out that in most suburban/rural settings the ground footprint becomes limited by the population density and bandwidth available - so the larger satellite footprint is only really useful in extremely remote locations.



Always fun to see a new UAV startup. Did you use an open source autopilot (like ardupilot, PX4, Paparazzi, etc) or build something internally?


Very cool idea. As far as applications, I love the idea of this being a lower cost / higher resolution version of satellite imaging, think Ororatec, Planet, Spire etc.


Absolutely, we think there are some really interesting use cases around imagery too - for exactly these reasons.


How do you deal with temperature (roughly -60°C/-70°F)? Do you heat the batteries? What about icing? It might be too cold for it at that altitude?


Yes, the stratosphere has some tough environmental challenges like these low temperatures. To retain enough battery capacity, heating elements are required. The same is true for other onboard electronics.

Interestingly, because the stratosphere’s air is so thin, heat generated by the aircraft isn’t lost as fast to the surrounding air as at sea-level.

As mentioned by th0mas88, humidity is pretty low and icing typically doesn’t occur at these altitudes.



Icing doesn't happen below about -40 C because moisture in the air at those temperatures becomes ice crystals which don't freeze to aircraft. At least not to aluminum normal aircraft. No idea whether it's the same for a solar drone.


I LOVE this -- I've nearly pulled the trigger on solar drone builds in the past, this is everything I wanted and more.

Amazing work! Super excited to follow along!



Thanks!


I work in real estate valuation and regularly consume bulk aerial photography. Please reach out to me at [email protected]!


Thanks Lars - I have emailed you!


Congrats!

We’ve got a group with other visionary founders / Unicorn founders that might be great to have you a part of.

[email protected] is my personal email.



Love this, you're doing what I dream of!


Thanks - appreciate the love!


This sounds awesome. I’m glad someone is running with this tech and not handcuffing it to a particular use case. Good luck!


this looks amazing. Particularly hopeful/interested if this could be used for wildfire prevention. Great work!


Thanks, wildfires inspired us to work on this technology, so we're excited to see it used in those applications too!


Do you climb during the day and glide at night to save battery? And if so, how much difference does it make?


I used to work on a platform like this and loved the challenges. Followed you all on LinkedIn!


Thanks - feel free to reach out if you have any lessons learned you think we should know about! Being a student of history is important for a project like this!


Very cool, glad to see interest in this space. How does this differ from SkyDweller?


Our aim is to fly at higher altitudes than Solar Impulse/SkyDweller, which keeps us above the turbulent winds and cloud cover of the troposphere, and makes long endurance flight more reliable/less weather dependent. Our platform is also a lot smaller than SkyDweller, which helps keep costs much lower and opens some interesting new opportunities - for example, deploying lots of aircraft in a mesh network.

The Solar Impulse/SkyDweller lineage is very inspiring - what an amazing way to demonstrate how much you can do with solar power!



Love the demo video from the 24h non-stop flight :)

Congrats on the milestone & keep on pushing!!



Thanks, it was a lot of fun!


This looks really promising! Really stoked to see where you guys take this.


Thanks, next stop is the stratosphere! :)


This demo is awesome! Congratulations on the progress!


Thanks!


How about a tandem wing aircraft?


Super cool!!! Good luck to you!


Very high-tech launch mechanism


Thanks, I've been training! ;)


Very cool. Good luck!


I was peripherally involved with a similar project a few years ago. They got bought out by Facebook. This was before Aquila.

There’s a good reason why most airplanes look and behave alike: because it works. Technology choices like flying wings (not used here) or twisting wings (used here) are a “code smell” to my computer programmer nose. To me, nothing is sexier than good reliable technology that works. Smart investors will know that. The other ones will do you a favor by staying away.

The use of batteries to maintain altitude at night is a big concern. Batteries are heavy and will dramatically cut down on the usable payload. They need to be maintained warm (but not too warm!), which is a challenge at the low ambient temperatures the aircraft will experience while flying.

Most airplane accidents happen during take-off and landing. Please do not shortchange these phases of flight, and good luck.



Low weight and high aerodynamic efficiency are crucial. You naturally end up with high aspect-ratio wings which tend to be more flexible than conventional aircraft wings. In order to keep aero-elastic effects under control, multiple tailplanes can help to stabilize the structure, and provide roll control at the same time - we’re not set on this technology though, ultimately our analysis tooling will drive this design decision.

Batteries are heavy, but if you want to conduct long endurance flights - greater than a few days, then realistically they are the best option.



To be fair, the Wright Flyer used twisting wings. Ailerons took over, but it's not like twisting wings are some low TRL thing.


The Wright brothers were incredible engineers, and a twisting wing made sense for their design. For high efficiency, a stiff wing is a must. Nowadays active stability systems make more designs practical. But the mission goals here favor low weight and reliability.


Also the Wright bros’ litigiousness over their IP was a main driver of the effective extinction of wing warping and the rise of ailerons rather than strictly engineering concerns. I imagine with newer materials wing warping could be pretty effective.


What are the alternatives to batteries if you want to fly through the night?


So it sounds like a great platform for spying and surveillance...


Fantastic work! What science packages are you looking to put on board? Do you have a target cargo/payload weight?

Tony Philips at SpaceWeather.com has been launching stratospheric balloons to sample cosmic rays for several years now, but of course he can only sample data while the balloon stays in the air, then he has to recover them in some very inhospitable places. A stratospheric airplane that can loiter for long periods of time would likely be something he'd be very interested in.



panopticon . com


Just wanted to comment to wish you guys luck. There are some bizarre comments here about use of the aircraft for defense purposes (as if that's a bad thing) or the "ethics" of surveillance, which applies equally to any surveillance technology, there's no reason to single out this platform.

I do wonder about the payload capacity, it seems like it might be quite small given the batteries and the limited performance available from the altitude.



Do you have any ethical concerns about the use of your technology for surveillance of civilian populations?

That’s the obvious use case for this technology, right? Cheaper and more easily retargetable than satellites. Longer duration, quieter, and more resilient than manned aircraft, but not fast or maneuverable enough to survive in contested airspace.

So that leaves large area, long term surveillance in uncontested conditions as the prime use case.

Sounds an awful lot like cops or an occupying force putting a fleet of these up to indefinitely track all movement or signals over entire neighborhoods or cities. Do you plan to market and sell your technology for this use?



Shouldn’t ethical concerns stop the usage of a technology, not its creation? Otherwise we risk never gaining the upside of said technology.


We can’t even stop usage of it. It’s futile. Best case is to also invent ways of disabling surveillance.


This is a concern for us. As with many disruptive technical advancements (e.g. in Nuclear or AI), there are many ways our technology can be used - both good and bad. It's important to us that what we do is ethical - that means supporting and pursuing use cases with huge positive societal value like rural connectivity or wildfire monitoring. With that said, there are definitely ethically-questionable use cases for this technology and I don’t underestimate how difficult it will be to navigate. We certainly have no intention of monitoring civilian populations and haven’t spoken to any police forces about what we’re doing.


I'm glad to hear that, I hope you stick to those principles if the police or military come calling. They have deep pockets and your investors will want their 100x.


Making their plane military-approved would be extremely costly and frankly it probably wouldn't work. There have been a lot of people commenting about the military clearly wanting this and taking over the project, but what makes a plane like this possible is not having the same requirements as military aircraft.

My biggest concern would be weight & power. This plane only works if it stays light and doesn't use a lot of power. If the military wanted this for live video or EO/IR, how would that communicate with ground sensors? KU satcom, UHF? Will it have IFF onboard, will it meet all the no-single-point-of-failure requirements? Everything the military requires will start using up a ton of power and adding a ton of weight. I get people always think these things will be used for evil, but it isn't exactly easy to take something civilian and suddenly ship it off to some USAF squadron.



I agree that's the most obvious use case, so I think the fact that the founders consciously avoided mentioning it means they must have ethical concerns, or at least understand others' concerns. I think this is a reasonable question to ask, and I'd be interested to hear whether they plan to sell it to surveillors and just feel guilty about admitting that, or if there's some reason they think this won't work for that application.


Excellent question, this sounds like an enabling technology for mass surveillance on a much larger scale. Creepy.


Radiolab did an episode about this in 2015: https://radiolab.org/podcast/eye-sky

They actually did do a surveillance experiment in Dayton Ohio in 2014: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-surve...



This sounds like military technology of the kind that e.g. Ukraine would currently like a few samples of. Or at least, dual-use.


Would probably be shot down or hacked/jammed by the Russians in a day or two


Shooting down an airplane at 20km altitude requires an expensive rocket and reveals position of the launcher. No, can't use cheap MANPADs for this.

My gut feeling tells me this airplane is potentially cheaper than a rocket, so if it is shot down, it is a win already. If it detects launcher position while rocket is on the way it is even bigger win. Potentially it reveals larger radar position too, that's another win.

It is difficult, expensive and risky to jamm objects at that altitude. In the current Ukraine-Russia war russians would probably not bother jamming it.

So, what these guys are developing certainly is a military technology. No way around this. High endurance, high altitude cheap aircraft will sell like hot cakes.



I don't know how they communicate with FPV drones 20-30Km away on the battlefield. They can't use cellphone networks, because they're compromised. I doubt you can fit a starlink terminal to a drone.

But this thing could be fitted with frequency-hopping comms, and could control a swarm of attack drones from 70,000 feet. It could also have a backlink to the pilot, allowing him to control any drone in the swarm.

I imagine the Ukrainian nerds are already all over this sort of idea.



The Ukrainians have infact fitted starlink to aerial drones. One of the reasons for their disputes with SpaceX.


So YC is getting into defense contracting now?


Fascinating reaction. It's not surprising but it is nonetheless disappointing.


Maybe they should be working on reliable management of multiple HN accounts.


I am commenting on my previous comment as myself. I'm not trying to pretend to be someone else. I don't have multiple HN accounts.


did you just respond to yourself as if a different person?


No, I commented on my own comment as the same person. I'm not surprised but I am disappointed to see the response as downvotes rather than actual engagement with the question and its implications. It's almost like people want to shape the Overton window to avoid this kind of discussion, ie, to put the blinders on themselves and others.

YC's reputation depends on and is justified by its investment portfolio. Its investments are not justified by its reputation.



Hello 20 ft. and 13 lbs, great if you could use the metric system to describe your aircraft :)

Also, in engineering it's pretty common to use it these days, even in the US.



Stop. This is not a valid startup and a waste of your time.

I say this with a heavy heart as I know you're passionate, but numerous failed startups of my own tought me to be critical in thinking.

What is you're "secret sauce"? How hard is it to replicate/exceed your efforts? I'm afraid the answers are "we put a lot of engineering work into it" and "not much, as we're just two guys and the army/google/fb have hundreds of engineers", and you're limited by physics. It's not like you invented new super-light batteries, did you?

I'm afraid this will likely be a waste of your time. You'll have fun, learn a lot, and that can be a goal on its own, But don't take a mortage....

sorry..



This is neither constructive nor actionable. Why is this not a valid business? They already have a functional prototype which is more than most young companies in this field manage, plus a clear path of where they want to be and who their customers are. So what exactly do you see as the problem?


How do you know? They may have a fine strategy here. In any case the world needs experts in these things so worst case it becomes a non unicorn business and makes a nice profit.


The technology is impressive, but it's worth spending some time thinking of the social-economic evolution of this technology.

Initially, this will likely be used in niche areas, like disaster management. Then, as prices come down, it will start to be used in luxury areas. Perhaps, as internet for concerts and festivals. Ultimately, someone is going to figure out how to use this to run advertisements in the sky, day and night.

Then as technology becomes even more reliable, rich people with remote cabins/small remote towns are going to start buying these planes to supply internet to them. Ultimately, if successful, you will start to see these everywhere in the sky.

The end result, the sky, the commons of humanity will be polluted by devices that only a small rich minority will benefit from, but the cost will be borne collectively by everyone in society.







Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact



Search:
联系我们 contact @ memedata.com