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.
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
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.
Well, the canadians apparently want him after his time's up here.
:)
Glad to see someone can appreciate all he's done for us.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
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?
"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.
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.
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
So who's "sponsoring" this group? My guess is one (or many) of MS, Apple, and/or perhaps Oracle.
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.
...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.
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.
How much should they have paid for the property in your opinion? How did you arrive at that figure?
Keep in mind Google needs to maintain the capacity of the field as an air strip, maintain Hanger One as a historical building, and other factors that make this more than just ordinary commercial real estate. In the end, Google still doesn't own the property and when that lease comes up in 60 years a whole lot of things could change with regards to Silicon Valley and the state of industry there. Either it will turn into the next armpit of America and resemble Detroit or perhaps the land will become even more valuable.
Anybody else could have also put a bid for the air field, even though you can legitimately argue perhaps that notification of such a lease opportunity may not have been as widely advertised as you might like. If it really was such a steal of a deal, it sounds more like you missed a golden opportunity yourself by not starting a Kickstarter campaign to raise the funds and flip the property to make some money or make a huge windfall to a charity of your choice. I really doubt you could have made much money by trying to outbid Google and in turn offering the land to other companies instead.
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.
'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'
not really, from what I heard that was intended but to do research flights then instrumentation and other mods would void their FAA certification (135 I think) for using commercial airports. And other things like carrying passengers.
mfwright@batnet.com
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