14 ms·
Google Takes Over Operations of Moffett Airfield from NASA
- melling 12y agoI really don't have an opinion on this one but when I see statements like this from the government "while reducing the government agency’s maintenance and operation costs by $6.3 million annually", I can't help but think that's meaningless when you've got an $18 trillion deficit. We could've cured cancer, gone the Mars, developed hypersonic flight, and probably about a dozen other projects that would have had a huge impact. The interest alone is 10x bigger than NASA's budget.
- EricBurnett 12y agoFwiw, US deficit is about 700B. 18T is their foreign debt, which is not terribly meaningful. Net investment position is -4.5T. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_...
- stvswn 12y agoDeficit: flow. Debt: stock. It is meaningful, because even if you can service it forever, the cost of servicing it could have been spent elsewhere, forever. The present value of all future debt servicing payments, taking into account the government's cost of capital, is... $18T. If we didn't have $18T in this debt, we could have $18T in some other debt -- we could be financing $18T worth of something else. I don't know how it's not meaningful.
- EricBurnett 12y agoI am no expert, but I find it better to look at debts credits together. Debt looks scary, but when other countries owe the US trillions too, it balances out somewhat. The net international investment position is an aggregate measure of how much over-leveraged the country is as a whole, and looks much less stark. This combines government debt with citizen assets, which is good and bad - masks federal policy issues, but also accounts for the artificially low taxes in the US and the impact that has on relative wealth placement.
- smcl 12y agoI'm curious as I've only ever seen "<country> has £<bignum> sovereign debt" and the other side of the equation is never really mentioned. But does the value of what the US has lent other countries approach $18T? Seems like it'd be hard to find even a handful of large enough countries you'd want to spread that sort of risk over.
- EricBurnett 12y agoHere is one particular (opinionated) explanation: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-... In general, the foreign debt taken on by the US is similar - e.g. bonds issued by various countries, and bought by the citizens and the government as an investment asset.
- ceejayoz 12y ago> I can't help but think that's meaningless when you've got an $18 trillion deficit. We get deficits via a lot of $6.3M/yr expenditures.
- melling 12y agoNo, i don't think so. Do you have the data to support that?
- DMac87 12y ago#Zeno's_paradox #infinitedivisibilityofmoney
- melling 12y agoLook, if you can't answer the question, and the best you can come up with is "that money is just lots $1 dollars...", you probably deserve what you're gonna get once interest rates go up and you're spending $1 trillion in interest.
- java-man 12y agoHow about $1.1 trillion from the last war? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
- exacube 12y agoThe US has poured tens of billions into cancer research, and much more globally.. is money really the biggest limiting factor?
- D_Alex 12y ago>is money really the biggest limiting factor? Kind of... To begin with, science jobs pay poorly, and a lot of exceptionally intelligent people choose high paying but ultimately ~zero-sum jobs like law and investment banking. And then there is the continual struggle for funding, which absorbs a good part of the scientists' time and energy.
- et2o 12y agoYes, definitely. These discussions often ignore that we have done very, very well for certain cancers.
- ghshephard 12y agoKeeping in mind, that compared to the scope of the problem, over 500,000 americans year die of Cancer, our investment has been miniscule. Compare this to EBola, which, even liberal estimates suggest we won't see more than 100 fatalities/year in the United States, and America has invested $1Billion. Cancer is a multi-trillion dollar problem - but the technology required to effectively combat it (nanobots, protein folding technology, targeted molecules, rapid-dynamic DNA assessment) is still many decades in the future. Of course, doing the basic research to develop those technologies is going to cost a lot of money as well. But the difference is, unlike many human maladies (Old Age) Cancer has a pretty well defined solution, we (perhaps appropriately) just haven't invested enough time and resources to deliver that solution yet.
- jacquesm 12y agoCuring cancer may not be limited by money alone, there are some things about cancer that make it extremely hard to eradicate. Think of it this way: you can probably reduce the incidence of cancer (but not of all varieties), you can possibly cure cancer with mechanisms that we can theorize about but which we have no practical implementation of, nor do we have a path to such a practical implementation where money would be accelerator to get us from where we are to that implementation (for instance: repairing and/or excising cells using nano bots, easy to think about, very hard, possibly impossible to implement). Finally, the better you get at repairing cancers the more cancers you will be repairing because as we age our cells copying mechanisms age as well and that's one possible source of cancer. So cure one cancer, cause the organism to live longer and deal with a whole bunch more. Cancer is to some degree systemic, it is a side effect of the way our bodies work. I'm holding out for a cure or even a vaccin for HIV/Aids but I'm skeptical on a 'cure for cancer', even though having such a thing would obviously be good.
- welder 12y agoLooks like Google X has a new home.
- mrshoe 12y agoNone of the articles I've read about this answer the one question that matters to me: Will I be able to land (and base) my plane at Google-run Moffett Field?
- amaks 12y agoOnly self-flying one.
- ChuckMcM 12y agoNo. A while ago folks tried to have the airfield re-classified for general aviation (GA) and met a lot of resistance from the communities around the field. It failed, as I recall, in at least three ballot measures. So it continues to operate as a 'private' airfield and you can only land with permission of the owner, or in the event of a declared emergency. That said, the more interesting question is whether or not Google will build their 'urban support area' which was basically code for providing housing for visiting employees (in the truest of 'company town' sort of ways.) A number of people spend significant time working for Google as 'visiting experts' (think professors on sabbatical) and that effort is hindered by the challenges of finding a nice place to stay, except there is housing for a few thousand people already at the airfield (formerly 'base housing') which could be repurposed for that. Of course if they do that, then there will be a large inflated Google ball that will chase you down and smother you if you try to leave :-)
- trhway 12y ago>So it continues to operate as a 'private' airfield and you can only land with permission of the owner corporate perks at Google have just become perkier - ability to commute by your private jet and land right near the campus. Protesters can block Google Bus - let them try doing that to Google Jet.
- ChuckMcM 12y agoOr the Google helicopter or the Google zeppelin :-) I believe that Lockheed continues to have access as well. But if you read closely you would see that Google just took over operations, not authority. My guess (I've no way to see the actual agreement) is that NASA still has the authority to grant or deny landing rights.
- dsl 12y agoI wonder what will happen to the California Air National Guard and Army Reserve units at Moffett?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- ScottBurson 12y agoI would guess those will stay, though I don't really know. They just spent the last couple of years building a building for the Guardian Angels -- I can see it out the window of my office across the street. It would be a little odd to abandon it.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- wpietri 12y agoDriving down that way, I always had a "Yay NASA!" moment when I went by the field. Somehow, "Yay corporate jets!" is not quite the same for me. They do talk about doing emerging tech research there, so I'll try to remain hopeful until I see what actually goes on there.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoHey, maybe they'll be launching googledrones from there too.
- neurotech1 12y agoFAA rules require remote control aircraft operators to get permission from the airfield operator if within 3 miles of the airfield. Google could ask permission from themselves. Google may still require FAA authorization for the drone flights as the FAA might not consider them "model aircraft"
- jedmeyers 12y agoMoffet airspace is congested for everyday drone operations. It practically shares class D airspace with Palo Alto airport and there is class C airspace for San Jose International right above it.
- neurotech1 12y agoThe 3 mile rule for model aircraft applies below 400 ft AGL only. I was thinking about small drones staying low. GA Aircraft are restricted from flying below 1000 ft over populated areas except when taking off and landing.
- hkmurakami 12y agoI know that feeling, having grown up here. I didn't really understand what goes on there, but it was always a really cool place to drive by in my parents' car as a kid. Fast forward 20 years, I'm working in Sunnyvale and commute by Moffett -- seeing that NASA logo on that silo looking thing was always heartwarming and inspiring. I understand the reality of numbers, but I can't help but be a bit emotional on this one.
- us0r 12y agoIs this actually "Google" or their executives holding company? While I don't doubt Google will use the space, it does not appear this is a Google deal. The official news release does not make any mention of Google[0]. Planetary Ventures, LLC was formed in 2007 and a recent (2013) WSJ article does not list it[1]. [0] - http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/186071 http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/186071 [1] - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/23/googles-long-list-of-subsidiaries-gets-much-shorter/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/23/googles-long-list-o...
- akurilin 12y agoWonder if this will have any effect on the CMU campus there. That was a really unique place to go to school to. Maybe they can collaborate somehow?
- joshAg 12y agoDoes Moffit still remain a federal airfield that defense companies can ship sensitive cargo out of? "Celli says his company ships satellites out of Moffett up to 12 times a year, and not being able to do so would mean a 160-mile trip to McClellan Air Force base, requiring 'cumbersome' and 'unsafe' travel down roads at night requiring special permits." "Similar concerns are expressed by John Maguire, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company. ... 'We have conducted a preliminary analysis considering a variety of facilities in the region, and have concluded that no single or combination of options provides a viable alternative to Moffett Field without adding material risk and cost to these critical programs,' Maguire writes. " -http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2012/05/22/concerns-about-job-losses-national-security http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2012/05/22/concerns-about-job-l... Supposedly traveling to mcclellan would involve a literal armed convoy escort by National Guard or active duty troops, but i don't have anything I can quote to back that up.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Animats 12y agoThis is after they already built the Google private air terminal at SJC. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/2013/05/06/googles-shiny-new-82-million-airport-terminal-in-silicon-valley/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/2013/05/06/googles...) (Will Air Force One will still be allowed to land at Moffett? That's where the President usually lands when traveling to Silicon Valley.) This sort of corporate excess is usually viewed as a sell signal. Google's profit margin has been declining recently; the last quarter was the second worst in five years. (http://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/profit_margin http://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/profit_margin). Google's stock price has leveled off. Google isn't in trouble yet, but, despite major efforts, it's never been able to develop a significant source of revenue other than ads.
- simula67 12y ago> it's never been able to develop a significant source of revenue other than ads. And Microsoft hasn't been able to develop a significant source of revenue other than selling technology. Google's ad revenue comes from a variety of products.
- davidcgl 12y agoIt goes to show how much Google is willing to spend on tech and research. Profits are important, yes, but in all honesty I don't wish to see Google prioritizes around Wall Street expectations and fade into irrelevance.
- bagels 12y agoSurely there is some bribery going on here for Google to repeatedly get so many exclusive perks from Moffet. Google gets discounted fuel from Moffet, paid for by taxpayers: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/google-executives-got-discounts-from-government-on-fuel-for-private-aircraft/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/google-executives-g... Google executives get exclusive rights to fly their private jets from Moffet for personal trips: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/150386125.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/150386125.html
- ghshephard 12y agoExclusive Perks? My understanding is that Google was paying a lot of money for those things. Do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise?