Google Takes Over Operations of Moffett Airfield from NASA
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
"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-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.
They do talk about doing emerging tech research there, so I'll try to remain hopeful until I see what actually goes on there.
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.
Google may still require FAA authorization for the drone flights as the FAA might not consider them "model aircraft"
GA Aircraft are restricted from flying below 1000 ft over populated areas except when taking off and landing.
Will I be able to land (and base) my plane at Google-run Moffett Field?
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 :-)
I lived in that housing for about 5 years as a kid. I have lots of memories of the base (Hangar one, the movie theater, Baskin-Robbins, the community pool, McDonald's, the pea patches behind the housing), particularly since, as a Navy brat, that was one of the few places I lived for more than a year or two in my entire childhood. I like the idea of going on a trip to Google for some reason and being put up in the same townhouse I lived in then, or one of my friends' houses.
It's just a question of whether or not the owner is likely to give permission. I can understand NASA not wanting everyone to land there, but if Google is the owner then it would seem to be unfair if they just kept the airport for use by their own jets and their buddies.
NASA was also reluctant to grant "permission" because certain aircraft generate noise complaints.
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.
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). 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.
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.
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 [1] - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/23/googles-long-list-o...
Google gets discounted fuel from Moffet, paid for by taxpayers:
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:
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.
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.
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.
We get deficits via a lot of $6.3M/yr expenditures.
...and rising, and falling, and rising, etc. Short-term movement depends on the economy and on the year of Presidential tenure (i.e. expect more spending in year one than year seven). The total over any decade is unlikely to be a surplus.
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.
These discussions often ignore that we have done very, very well for certain cancers.
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.