378 points by ZacnyLos 15 hours ago | 342 comments on HN
| Mild negative Moderate agreement (3 models)
Landing Page · v3.7· 2026-03-15 22:35:39 0
Summary Weapons Development vs. Security & Life Hostile
This GitHub repository hosts code for a MANPADS (portable anti-aircraft missile) launcher system, publicly accessible for global deployment. The content directly contradicts multiple UDHR provisions—most critically Articles 3 (right to life), 28 (peaceful social order), 29 (duties to community), and 30 (prohibition on destruction of rights). While GitHub's structural infrastructure supports privacy, free expression, and equal access, the platform does not acknowledge or mitigate the fundamental rights conflicts posed by hosting weapons-development technology. The evaluation registers strong negative scores on Articles 28–30, reflecting the inherent incompatibility between facilitating weapons proliferation and the UDHR's vision of universal human rights protection.
Rights Tensions3 pairs
Art 19 ↔ Art 3 —Freedom of expression (Article 19) to publish weapons code conflicts with right to life (Article 3); platform allows expression without acknowledging or balancing the life-safety trade-off.
Art 19 ↔ Art 28 —Free expression of weapons technology contradicts Article 28's requirement for social and international order in which rights are fully realized; weapons proliferation undermines the peaceful order upon which rights depend.
Art 29 ↔ Art 3 —Article 29 ¶2 requires limitation of rights when they conflict with others' rights; weapons development code violates others' right to life and security, a duty not enforced structurally by platform.
Straight up admitting that it's meant to implement MANPADS is certainly a choice, I hope the author doesn't get himself in hot water.. ITAR or something..
I'm impressed by the kid's engineering and gumption, but I think he's a bit.. misguided, if you'll pardon the pun. The video ends with shots of Russian drone war, and, bizarrely, photos of David Koresh.
> This project manifesto declares a fundamental shift: advanced air-defense capabilities—once locked behind billion-dollar state arsenals and classified labs—are now within reach of determined individuals using consumer electronics, open-source software, and rapid prototyping.
I guess a lot of people will not be happy with this xD
The engineering is genuinely impressive for $96, but naming the repo "MANPADS-System-Launcher-and-Rocket" on GitHub is going to attract exactly the kind of attention you don't want. ITAR implications aside, the interesting part is the mid-flight trajectory recalculation on a $5 sensor. That's the same basic problem military guidance systems solve with hardware that costs thousands.
The gap between consumer electronics and mil-spec capability keeps shrinking and this is a pretty stark demonstration of where that trend leads. A few years ago this would have required an IMU that cost more than this entire build. The democratization angle cuts both ways though - the same accessibility that makes this cool for hobbyists makes it genuinely concerning from a proliferation standpoint.
A certain kind of mind deals with stress by devising solutions, even if one cannot put them into action.
Seeing people in Israel, Iran, the general Middle East as well as the Ukraine live in fear of drone strikes might have incentivised this person to come up with a potential way to deal with these threats.
Cheap air defense would equilibrate drone warfare again:
Currently drones are much cheaper that the systems that take them down.
Many mention ITAR or some other issue, nothing about this project is even close to ITAR (as far I understand), connecting camera to rocket using it as guidance will get in trouble most likely, if not mistake only thing allowed is using camera to AIM at sun.
This is obviously a missile, and I'm not well-versed in weapons tech, but won't this need a camera to actually track and take out a flying object? So far I just see gps and barometric sensing...
Also 3D printing and some electronics, ok fine, but where do you get the rocket propellant? That seems at least as critical as the software and sensing side of things...
Fascinating, is miniaturisation and “democratisation” of offensive capabilities via 3d printing and consumer tech going to impact defensive capabilities as well?
Are we going to see foot troops carry one of these strapped to their backpacks and launched autonomously to counteract incoming drones?
There are 2 short segments in the video showing the actual performance and thus far it is a complete [1] failure [2].
The guy has a talent, and he put together a nice prototype based on OpenRocket [3], but with all due respect, this is not a rocket, and you are not going to win any war with this toy, even if all your enemy has are rocks thrown at you from pretty much similar distance.
The remix of computer games / Ukraine / Martin Luther King / Vietnam / David Koresh just adding more to the amateur spirit and confusion.
Really cool work on making your own rocket motors.
I wonder why he calls it a MANPADS (Man portable Air Defense System) It does slightly resemble a Manpads, but with a GPS based guidance system it would not able to be used for air defense, even conceptually. Typically manpads would use something like an infrared/optical or radar guidance system which would run way more than $5. This does seem like a cool home made AGM-176 or similar. There's always been a side project idea in the back of my head about what the cheapest IR or laser guided RC Plane launched rocket would look like. A cheap rocket design powered by some model rocket engines that could be used for a drone -> drone intercept cheaply.
Awesome job taking a fun idea into reality. It's really impressive to see the design work
I strongly object to building weapons. It is not right. Raise your consciousness, young hacker.
I grew up building homemade rocket engines to power model rockets. I even programmed a flight computer in ASM.
I was always quite risk averse and, then being only shortly after 9/11, I told my friend I worried what we were doing may be illegal or otherwise get us in trouble. So he picked up the phone and called the county fire marshal. My friend explained EXACTLY what we were doing, down to the potassium nitrate and the homemade black powder and nitrocellulose igniters. The fire marshal paused for a long moment and said “it’s not against any law I’m aware of. Just don’t start any fires.” We proceeded to have many successful flights and participated in NERF (a rocketry club that used to get 12kft clearance from FAA before the govt started stonewalling us).
I feel very fortunate to have grown up in an environment where that was permitted. I fear that my children will not have the same privilege—for many reasons, but one factor is people putting violent things like this on GitHub. Please take it down.
I would suggest using a more modern IMU, the MPU6050 has been long obsoleted both in cost and capability by newer IMUs. I used the ST LSM6DSOX in my rocket flight computers, for example it has a way better rate noise density of 110ug/Sqrt[Hz] at 16g fs compared to the awful 400 ug/Sqrt[Hz] of the MPU6050 and is cheaper than the MPU6050 on LCSC last time I bought some. If you go newer to the LSM6DSV you can get 60ug/Sqrt[Hz] but these aren't as cheap. There was an interesting Sony project which used a synchronized array of these consumer IMUs to achieve lower noise (apparently they became export controlled despite just fusing a bunch of consumer IMUs on one PCB!)
Nowadays you can even use the LSM6DSV320X which has both a low-g and high-g integrated which basically obsoletes the high-g ADXL375 and saves some space, but it's not quite at the price and supply reliability of the LSM6DSOX since it is less than a year old.
I remember an anecdote our robotics lecturer told our university class in 1995, which was about how in the west we try to make expensive things that are the absolute best of technology and how the other side didn't have that luxury and relied on ingenuity.
He described a cold war Russian missile they had somehow obtained and were tasked with trying to reverse engineer. Ostensibly, it was thought to be a heat seeking missile, but there seemed to be no control or guidance circuitry at all. There was a single LDR (light dependent resistor) attached to a coil which moved a fin. That was it. Total cost for the guidance system maybe a couple of dollars, compared to hundreds of thousands for the cheapest guidance systems we had at the time.
The key insight was that if you shined a light at it, the fin moved one way and if there was no light the fin moved the opposite way. That still didn't explain how this was able to guide a missile, but the next realisation was that the other fins were angled so when this was flying (propelled by burning rocket fuel), the missile was inherently unstable - rotating around the axis of thrust and wobbling slightly. With the moveable fin in place, it was enough to straighten it up when it was facing a bright light, and wobble more when there was no bright light. Because it was constantly rotating, you could think of it as defaulting to exploring a cone around its current direction, and when it could see a light it aimed towards the centre of that cone. It was then able to "explore the sky" and latch on to the brightest thing it could see, which would hopefully be the exhaust from a plane, and so it would be able to lock on, and adjust course on a moving target with no "brain" at all.
> The video ends with shots of Russian drone war, and, bizarrely, photos of David Koresh.
You're omitting that the end of the video also features pictures of Martin Luther King, Vietnamese civilians during America's invasion of their country and Afghani Mujahideen freedom fighters during the Soviet Union's invasion of theirs; I think he's trying to make a point about technology enhancing the capabilities of people who are in any conflict with conventionally powerful forces, not an endorsement of David Koresh.
It's not really terribly new actually, in the past, rapid advances in consumer technology have enabled other sort of weapon guidance systems. For instance, the development of extremely compact television cameras available to consumers directly lead to the development of the Walleye television bomb. It happened when one nerdy guy was fucking around with his new camera and realized that he could automatically track track features in an analogue television signal using some quite basic analogue electronics. Point the camera into the general direction of the target and you can then "lock on" to some target feature and based on contrast it could tell how that feature was moving around in the image.
He implemented a 1D tracker in his garage, took it to work and showed people. A few years later these bombs are taking out bridges and even sometimes hitting moving trucks.
MANPADS can be effective against large drones, but definitely not against the kind of FOV shit we see in Ukraine. They were originally designed to kill helicopters and low flying aircraft, and I'm guessing that's still his design intent.
The fact that home made drones can cause such havoc to even the best funded military is an equalizer when the military with all the power is actively trying to completely eliminate the otherside.
There are no home made devices a Gazan can build that can protect from a 2000lbs bomb.
> The gap between consumer electronics and mil-spec capability keeps shrinking
My friend's brother works in munitions and had, in his spare time, designed and prototyped a missile that could be built for about 10k. He pretty much was ignored by the contractor he works for.
Shockingly, as of a couple weeks ago, they are all hot and bothered to talk.
soo... i have no kept up with what's gone on in russia/ukraine. Are those drone videos what i think they are – drones sneaking up on humans and, presumably, ceasing them of life?
edit: Ok, I googled the guy
> I have read the works of authors such as Jean Baudrillard, Desmod Morris,
and Ted Kaczynski who believe that technology is harming us and the world.
https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/User:Alisherkhojayev
Cheap sensors look impressive in demos but drift and calibration wreck repeatability unless you babysit launches so nobody in defense is sweating this yet.
What the “government” has in store for you is way scarier. You just don’t know it any more than a cow on a pasture knows what a slaughter house is, yet.
Consumer GPS chips are specifically nerfed for using them in rockets; they give erroneous readings on purpose if altitude is above a certain height and/or if speeds exceed a certain speed. That’s likely why the mid-course correction software uses other methods.
MANPADS are certainly covered by ITAR. It could probably be effectively argued by his lawyers that what he has created isn't truly MANPADS but rather just an edgy toy that superficially resembles a weapon system but isn't actually capable of performing as one. Maybe that would work, but I think his chance of getting dragged into the legal system for this or for some chickenshit like weed possession are very high, particularly if the media at large picks up this story.
What started in Ukraine, this is modern warfare. Like most "consumer" goods that are mass produced, you can now get a capable strike force for peanuts.
The russians have taken close to 1.5 million casulties because ukraine engineering for cheap drones. Putin really, really f-ed up his "3 day military operation".
Yes, I don't think this project is a serious threat as a weapon, it's more interesting if viewed as a politically provocative stunt, to get people thinking about the relationship between technology and war.
I'm surprised nobody else has pointed this out. The entire YouTube video has only two short clips of the actual rocket being fired, and in both cases the clips are very short and only show the rocket being fired and then following an erratic flight path, and then get cut before showing the rocket hitting anything.
For all the technical info given in the video, there is a curious lack of any data regarding the actual accuracy of the system. What percentage of rockets tested managed to hit anything and at what range?
But you get more followers and that's the goal today isn't it? You have to take the good with the bad. No one is categorizing the follower ranks by "good guys" versus "bad guys" so you never know when one of your "admirers" is only there to monitor you in case you get out of line.
You don't need to win any wars with it if you can use them to sow confusion, obscure the firing of more serious rockets, and/or trigger a sufficiently more expensive response.
It clearly needs more work, but if an amateur can get this far at this low cost, odds are you'll see attempts at overwhelming attackers or defense systems by sheer volume with cheap decoys like this long before they become an actual threat in and of themselves.
Get the rocket a bit more stable, and force an attack to try to take out dozens of these because one of them might be a real threat, and you'll have created a problem.
I was suprised seeing american youtube folks building rockets (including orientation and guidance systems) in their free time. In many countries doing this is borderline jail time.
Seems like a one way road--the way things are getting stricter and stricter. My parents did shit when they were growing up that would have landed me in prison, and I did plenty of things growing up that would have landed my kid in prison.
I fear the next generation is going to grow up confined to a bubble where they're only allowed to stay home and mindlessly consume corporate approved product, never make things, never build things, never destroy things, never hack a computer game, never reverse engineer a wire protocol, never go out and walk around and explore, never race things, never jump off things, never blow things up or burn them down, never protest things or yell at someone, never get into a fistfight, never take physical risks and learn what hurts and what doesn't. In 2050, growing up means just 1. go to church, or 2. watch streaming.
Repository content itself — code for weapons system — raises freedom of expression tensions; no editorial framing addresses whether such expression serves human rights.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Repository title explicitly references 'MANPADS-System-Launcher-and-Rocket' weapons technology.
Code accessible for global distribution via GitHub's public repository model.
No editorial commentary or content moderation notes visible on the hosted page.
Inferences
The platform facilitates expression of technical information about weapons systems, which represents a clash between Article 19 (free expression) and Articles 3, 28 (security, peace).
Absence of editorial context or conflict disclosure suggests the platform does not position itself as arbitrating whether such expression is compatible with human rights.
Repository permits peaceful assembly of developers around shared code project; however, the subject matter (weapons) potentially conflicts with Article 20 ¶2 (prohibition on violence).
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Repository includes discussion and collaboration mechanisms standard to GitHub.
Developers may fork, comment, and contribute without membership barriers.
Inferences
Structural freedom of association is supported, though the purpose of association (weapons development) raises Article 20 ¶2 concerns.
Article 29 articulates duties to the community, including the limitation of rights when they conflict with others' rights and freedoms. Repository content (weapons) directly violates others' fundamental rights to life, security, and peace. No editorial addresses this duty or limitation.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Repository facilitates weapons development without structural gates or duty-based review.
No disclaimer or ethical framing addresses how distribution serves or violates others' rights.
GitHub does not implement rights-limiting mechanisms based on potential harm to others' safety or security.
Inferences
The hosting of weapons development code violates Article 29 ¶2's principle that rights are limited by the rights and freedoms of others.
Structurally, GitHub does not enforce the duties-based framework that Article 29 establishes — the platform permits expression without weighing harm to collective security.
Repository content (MANPADS launcher system) directly contradicts Article 28's assertion of social and international order in which rights are fully realized. Weapons development undermines the peaceful social order upon which human rights depend. No editorial context addresses this conflict.
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Repository title explicitly describes 'MANPADS-System-Launcher-and-Rocket' — a portable anti-aircraft missile system.
Code is publicly accessible for download and deployment globally.
No GitHub editorial, warning, or governance note qualifies or contextualizes the weapons-development purpose.
Repository structure includes documentation and launchers for operational deployment.
Inferences
The subject matter of the repository is inherently in direct conflict with Article 28's vision of a social and international order protective of human rights.
GitHub's platform neutrality, while protecting expression, structurally enables proliferation of weapons technology that undermines the conditions for human rights realization.
The absence of any framing or conflict disclosure suggests the platform does not engage with the rights-conflict dimension of hosting weapons development code.
Article 30 prohibits interpretation or action aimed at destroying any right or freedom under the Declaration. Repository content — weapons technology — is explicitly designed to enable destruction of life and security (Articles 3, 5, 28). No editorial addresses this prohibition.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Repository code is engineered for destructive purpose (anti-aircraft missile launching).
Global distribution via GitHub enables deployment in contexts that may violate others' rights to life and security.
No structural safeguards, licensing restrictions, or governance gate prevent Article 30 violations.
Inferences
The repository directly enables destruction of Article 3 (right to life), Article 5 (security of person), and other fundamental rights.
GitHub's platform design does not recognize or enforce Article 30's prohibition against activities aimed at destroying UDHR rights.
By facilitating unrestricted distribution, GitHub structurally enables Article 30 violations.
GitHub's structure permits publication and sharing of code without pre-publication censorship; HTTPS and no third-party tracking support confidential expression. However, no disclosure of conflicts or editorial standards around weapons-related content.
GitHub's community features (issues, discussions, pull requests) enable association and collective action among developers. No restrictions on who may participate.
GitHub's hosting structure permits and facilitates distribution of weapons technology without gates, disclaimers, or conflict disclosure. The platform's neutral stance on content means it structurally enables harm to the international peace order that Article 28 presupposes.
GitHub's structure does not implement Article 29's duty-based framework. The platform allows unfettered publication of weapons code without balancing against competing rights (right to life, security of others). No content governance reflects Article 29 ¶2 limitations on rights.
GitHub's structure permits and facilitates activity (weapons development) that directly serves to destroy rights guaranteed by the UDHR. The platform does not implement safeguards against Article 30 violations. Hosting and distribution mechanisms enable weaponization.
Repository is not an educational resource; GitHub's accessibility standards (100% alt text, lang attributes) provide baseline support without substantive educational content.
Repository title uses technical acronym 'MANPADS-System-Launcher-and-Rocket' without explicit statement that this describes a portable anti-aircraft missile system designed for lethal deployment; obfuscates destructive purpose through technical nomenclature.