Slashdot Mirror
Google's Lease of NASA Airfield Criticized By Consumer Group
Spy Handler writes Yesterday's announcement that Google will lease Moffett Field from NASA for 60 years drew criticism from a group called Consumer Watchdog, which stated "This is like giving the keys to your car to the guy who has been siphoning gas from your tank. It is unfairly rewarding unethical and wrongful behavior. These Google guys seem to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it – and, sadly, it looks like that is true.”
Sounds like this so-called consumer group is jealous... They may not be a "consumer" group, probably more like an astro-turf group pretending to be for the lowly "consumer". Hard to tell these days.
Eric Schmidt walks
This is just the first step to get Google Fiber to Mars.
NASA doesn't need this place and Google has some cool ideas they want to lease it for and this is unethical? What?
I very rarely complain about the editors and stay out of the beta discussions (but beta does suck) but I am getting as tired as everyone else with some of the submissions these days. If there are two articles that link to the exact same content but on different sites jut pick one and use it. Having two links just wastes the time of the users that actually RTFA...
* Yes, I occasionally RTFA, I'll turn in my /. ID on my way out now...
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Everything is For Sale. Including your Liberty.
Google is a government spy.
Obama is a traitor. Obama runs a baby-Stalin dictatorial regime. Obama is an imperial president. Obama and his regime are the enemies within. Obama and his regime are the enemies of faith, freedom, family and liberty. Obama has bought our LEOs and Military with Pay and Pension with Printed Fake Federal Reserve Notes. LEOs and Military should note that those FRNs are paper, but our freedom costs much blood. We need to end thus regime and most of the government needs to be re-chained as the Constitution wanted. All of the acolytes of Alinsky, Cloward and Piven should be arrested and imprisoned for their sedition, for their treason, for their utter evil.
Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.
Arrest Obama. Now. Or you are a traitor a liar and thief
A NASA airfield is not a consumer product or service. Google's leasing it has no immediate impact upon anything related to consumers directly. A "consumer watchdog" chiming in on this is like Gordon Ramsey engaging Stephen Hawking in a debate about black holes.
Their gripe is based on a previous case of Google being given discounts on fuel purchases, which the watchdog group themselves admits did not negatively impact the government or NASA. Google didn't steal this fuel or commit fraud to get these discounts. Their opinion is simply that it was unfair preference shown to Google(which, if anything, is misconduct on the part of NASA). So comparing this to stealing gas is unfair on the part of the watchdog group.
"These Google guys seem to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it"
So because Google was given got some fuel at a discount, "these Google guys" shouldn't be allowed to do anything at all anymore? What are they getting away with? Oh god they've leased some land and given the government some money for something that would have otherwise depreciated in value unused! The atrocity!
Who are these nuts, their one complaint seems to be that Google was purchasing fuel from a government airfield while flying their planes out of it. They talk about "Up To" $5.3 million without offering any context or pointing out how they arrived at that number. Did Google even know it was improper? Does this have something to do with the idiotic aviation fuel tax which taxes private aircraft who use the traffic control system minimally (where the money is supposed to go) while giving the commercial airline industry a free ride despite their heavy reliance on the system?
It is about unfairly advamtaging gogle over everybody else. Now if they got a 5-10 year lease while repairing it, I might accept that, but they are getting a rate *for 60 years* that is a drop in the bucket compared to what that airfields commercial value is worth.
Which one has more gravitas?
"While this arrangement did not cause an economic loss to NASA or DLA-Energy, it did result in considerable savings for H211 and engendered a sense of unfairness and a perception of favoritism toward H211 and its owners. "
So nobody lost money. It sounds like Google found a way to save money (thus being good stewards of corporate cash).
In 2011 Google offered to pay a big chunk of restoration costs for the hanger, and NASA instead decided to sell or lease it. It was used for Star Trek in 2009, but other than that it seems to have sat empty.
So instead of an empty unused hanger, NASA is getting 6.3 million per year for the next 60 years.
I really don't see who is losing anything here.
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
The traitors run this country and unless you're planning to put them all up against a wall, you're not going to see 'their own' prosecuting them unless it is to the benefit of their own political goals.
More California liberal pussies whining. that a big bad corporation is going to use the airfield to actually invent something useful unlike NASA which cant do crap anymore because of all the government bureaucracy regulating them.
Not for free is Google getting Moffett.
"In fact the lease gives Google unprecedented control of a federal facility to use as its own playground," said John M. Simpson, director of Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project.
In fact the lease gives Google control of a federal white elephant in exchange for $19.3 million per year plus taxpayer savings of $6.3 million per year. Total $25.6 million to the good for taxpayers.
Ah yes... another group that feels its your patriotic duty to give the government our money. And to what glorious end should will the government put googles money? The NSA? The 3rd war in Iraq? Propping up yet another 3rd world dictator to keep the price of some commodity down? No thanks.
since 2007, google has paid the government $9.1 million to park their jets at moffett airfield. in that time, google has saved maybe $5.3 million in fuel costs through preferential treatment. boo fucking hoo.
now, google will lease moffett for $19 million a year, plus maybe $6 million a year in maintenance costs. google will then throw in $200 million to renovate the place and restore hangar one. but, they will save under $1 million in fuel costs through preferential treatment. or maybe over. who cares? it's so unfair. : (
... but their website doesn't look like it was designed in 1994.
No he doesn't! Haven't you been paying attention to the articles about planes, rockets and self-driving cars?
In a couple years, Eric Schmidt is going to forget what his legs are for...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The group clearly has a bee in their bonnet about Google. Pretty much every month, they put out a big press release attacking something the company does.
http://insidegoogle.com/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Luddites. Can't live with em, can't take their tech toys away from them so they shut up.
What's up with /.? ESA just successfully landed a probe on a comet! And the top /. threads are echocolate and an airfield lease??? /. is dead to me from now on... It has proven too late and irrelevant one too many times.
So who's "sponsoring" this group? My guess is one (or many) of MS, Apple, and/or perhaps Oracle.
It says Google's been getting private jet fuel at government negotiated costs.
Jeezus people. Read.
How much of Larry Page and Sergey Brin are really left in that company. I remember that day very well for some reason. I was working as a tester. A french guy I worked with told how awesome it was that Googles shares would be valued at the golden ratio, and I told him what I though - that they had sold out. That was mean of me. They were just doing what they had to - probably pressure by the IPO. But the fact remains. They're a spiritless publicly traded company now. If you try to contact either of them, their robotic avatars probably screen their mail. I'm sure they're nice guys really by they are not Google now, not really. You are, like any shareholder and how much do you care? You just want a good ROI on your shares.
The report they are drawing their findings from found no wrongdoing on Google's part:
"We found that Ames officials accurately reported H211’s relationship with the Center to DLA-Energy but DLA-Energy believed H211 was performing only NASA-related missions and therefore was entitled to fuel at the cost-plus-surcharge rate. We found that a misunderstanding between Ames and DLA-Energy personnel rather than intentional misconduct led to H211 receiving the discounted fuel rate for flights that had no NASA-related mission." (emphasis mine).
So more like buying gas from a gas station which had accidentally listed the wholesale price than siphoning gas from a friend.
Defense contractors have been leasing parts of Moffett for ages, there's nothing new about this. Google probably wants a nice, big, pre-paved space to test their driverless cars.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Of course Google can do whatever it wants. This country is shit.
So based on this,the story is basically as follows:
- Google decides to lease an airfield from NASA for corporate jets
- NASA agrees to sell Google fuel at discounted rates (no state or local tax) in exchange for Google planes collecting climate data
- After 6 years of this, a NASA auditor notices ALL Google planes receive the discount, not just those carrying out NASA experiments.
- NASA stops selling them discounted fuel in September of 2013.
- Google now wants to renew the lease (without the discounted fuel)
- ???
- Therefore, evil!
I seem to be missing a step in Consumer Watchdog's logic here. Anyone able to fill me in?
If NASA was inappropriately selling discounted fuel, that is NASA's fault, not Google's. It should have nothing to do with renewing the lease now.
So because Google got away with not being charged full price for fuel for Jetliners this is reason NOT to lease out government land at a profit? Seriously? Those two things have nothing to do with each other...the metaphor used is entirely wrong...it's like agreeing to lease your car at a profit to someone who wasn't paying for gas when they 'borrowed' your car. Google didn't 'steal' anything, it's up to government to price their services accordingly. If anyone is going to question the deal then the only question should be "were there any other bidders for leasing the land?" in other words "Did the government go with the highest price offer?"...
...this sort of thing would not happen.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Sonoma Raceway (acck, ack, cough) Sears Point, thank you ... has right turns. That would never work.
I'm a nerd and this doesn't remotely qualify as news. Posts like these are why people make fun of slashdot.
The Moffat authority has to be the worst landlord in Silicon Valley. I was involved in trying to find space for an educational non-profit (I am on the board). We looked at some space the Moffat authority had -- what they offered and the prices and terms they put forth were pure, unadultrated lifetime-government-employee unhingedness. It didn't even pass the giggle test. We snorted and moved on. Also... I have some friends at the Carnegie-Melon Silicon Valley campus, which rents from the Moffat authority. What they have to go through is goofy -- the rents are high, it takes forever to get permission to do anything, in part because Moffat has historic status. Hanger 1, in particular, is listed separately on the national register of historic buildings. So not only do you have to find a tennant who actually wants that behemouth space, you need to find a tennant that finds doing business with a capricious, narcissictic, and unhinged landlord entertaining. Good luck.
And somehow, Google is the evil one for receiving a discount? They're likened to someone steeling gas? I wonder how many of these whiners refuse to enter their loyalty card number at the pump so as not to under-pay.
Some of you might not remember, but I remember a world without Google. I look forward to those days returning in the future.
If that's the case, then charge them what the audit finds was used incorrectly and then set up something to mon
If the lease states that they can use the fuel, then what's the problem?
XDInd
Are the Myth Busters going to have to find another giant hangar for their large scale experiments?
This matters much more than Google getting a price break on some jet fuel.
"These Google guys seem to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it – and, sadly, it looks like that is true.
I may be part of the unelite and not-super-rich, but the above statement fails to describe how this is different from the actions of these groups of folks:
1) politicians --lie, cheat, steal, embezzel, dont file taxes and waste our money
2) sports stars --do all sorts of crimes from assaults to rape without prosecution
3) the other rich folks -- write a check and you can do whatever you want because for Republicans, money is the key to the kingdom
Until there's some better demonstration of how what Google is doing is wrong, Consumer Watchdog (and anyone else) can sod right off until the day Google asks THEM to pay their bills ( game ticket sales, voting, pay taxes, support the products of the "other" rich).
to use their airplanes for some flights/experiments a few years back? If so, it seems like a fair exchange.
'Yesterday's announcement that Google will lease Moffett Field from NASA for 60 years drew criticism from a group called Consumer Watchdog, which stated "This is like giving the keys to your car to the guy who has been siphoning gas from your tank.'
Would this Consumer Watchdog group be run out of One Microsoft Way Redmond?
'this arrangement did not cause an economic loss to NASA or DLA-Energy'
in 25 years will we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Ames Research Center or celebrate 25th anniversary of Google International Airport? People criticize NASA for screwing things up by saying they used to do all kinds of really great stuff years ago. But then NASA doesn't have the budget or resources like they had years ago. People should know what NASA does, it is written in the Space Act, and they (should) serve the people. If not, then complain or complain to elected representatives. Google doesn't have to say what they do, they serve themselves and shareholders. Nothing wrong with a business serving themselves within reason as long as customers pay money, But govt agencies and private businesses are two different thigs (it gets confusing i.e. private companies performing government functions like police services).
mfwright@batnet.com
Is this so-called consumer rights advocacy group actually saying that a company paying a rent for prepared flat space which is currently sitting idle is in the wrong for doing so?
The fuck?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The US Govt put these US Govt sites on the superfund list to begin with. Was it right when these sites were not on the list or is it right now? Why do you believe it now but not then? Personal biases or police preferences? To some extent this is like NASA "man rating" a new rocket: to get "man rated" Elon Musk's Falcon 9 will have to first make a number of unmanned flights, and will have to have a launch abort system that must be proven with 2 flight tests. When NASA wanted to fly shuttles, it stuffed two guys into the very first flight airframe (which had huge black zones and no launch abort system, to say nothing of actual unmanned test flights of the non-existing safety system).
Was there some toxic crap at El Toro? Almost certainly, as at almost any other military/industrial/commercial site of that age. Most do not get the attention of politicians and the resultipn wave of "cleanup funds" to pad the local economy as a once-bustling government facility shuts down. Hint: compare the total set of all sites where thinks like MEK and perchlorates were used with the subset that became "superfund sites" .... any correlation between deep-pocketed taxpayer agencies and cleanup sites is just a happy coincidence.
The real problem with this Google thing is not just the sneaky way they leveraged use of the airfield to get cheap avgas until somebody noticed. The real problem is that a mega corp with ties to the whitehouse has gotten a 60-year lease to a famous Navy base turned NASA facility in a metropolitan area where in any other situation the price would have been off the scale - with an apparent lack of open bidding etc. The simple fact is that both the Navy and NASA were able to afford operating these facilities for decades and have more money now than at many times in the past, so this was not some sort of funding emergency; it COULD and indeed SHOULD have gone through a process that included congress and the public (whose bases these were) in the loop. This is too much like NASA's recent lock-in of a long-term lease to SpaceX of another national asset: pad 39A at Kennedy Space Center. Obama will be gone in two years but the next president (and likely several after) will have no say over these national assets. Normally such long term plans for our national assets go to congress.