Hacker News Reader

Comment by CryptoBanker | Hacker News Reader

In the two test launches shown in the video, the "missile" doesn't fly straight nor does it demonstrate ability to be "guided" by the launcher towards any particular target.

It's also incredibly slow. There are children's rocket kits that fly significantly faster than this.

View on HN

Yeah, neither article nor the video itself talks about "accuracy" AFAIK, which seems like a kind of important thing in this whole concept, otherwise it's just a "horizontal rocket launcher" which is cool I guess, but not so close to a MANPAD.

The video is also cut in a way so you cannot tell that the launch seems to have been a complete failure? The rocket is vertical at the last frame: https://i.imgur.com/e2Kld6I.png

> Yeah, neither article nor the video itself talks about "accuracy" AFAIK, which seems like a kind of important thing in this whole concept, otherwise it's just a "horizontal rocket launcher" which is cool I guess, but not so close to a MANPAD.

Yeah, it seems to be trying to hew too closely to the conventions of existing missiles.

A way more practical home-made "MANPAD" would probably be more like these Ukrainian drone interceptors: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/10/what-are-the-ukrain.... 200 mph and 3 mile range is not bad, and definitely better than whatever the OP is.

Baby steps ... with a few more contributors, this could be turned into, say, a $500.00 missile that works quite effectively.

Watching the video I immediately thought of the SNL skit: https://youtu.be/FaOSCASqLsE?t=141

If I am understanding what I saw, for all the work on the canards, the propellant runs out immediately leaving it to tumble in air,

That being said, I agree that it's a prototype and all that entails. I agree that it can (and probably will be) improved upon.

The engine and the warhead are two of the biggest challenges in making a missile, in large part because anything high performance is also going to be spectacularly dangerous to manufacture.

Guidance is by a huge margin more important. The best engine and warhead is meaningless without a means of hitting your target.

I disagree. A missile without guidance is a rocket which definitely has its uses on the battlefield.

A missile without propulsion is at best a bomb which doesn't do much good without an aircraft to drop it from

I frankly would care little about the speed; it can always be improved with a better propellant. I would care about a cheap ability to guide the rocket. If it's there, it may be consequential for a real (para)military application.

(A quadcopter is perfectly guidable, but it must be slower than a rocket, and costs more than $96.)

Guidance systems have speed limitations. Just because it works when slow does not mean it will work if you upgrade propellant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com