| Author | Message | ||
     Lauren Weinstein (Lauren) Moderator Username: Lauren Post Number: 38 Registered: 06-2003 |
Greetings. As reported in The New York Times, the Google founders have attained coveted and apparently pretty much unprecedented landing rights for their so-called "party plane" (a customized wide-body Boeing 767-200) at NASA Ames' Moffett Field. Now, they bought and rigged out that baby using their own money, not Google corporate funds, so I personally don't think it's anybody else's business what they do with it. And hell, if I were them I'd probably try to get those landing rights myself -- the facilities are almost literally next door to the main Google campus. However, given the controversial history of Moffett as relates to private individuals who have wanted access to the aircraft resources there, this does inevitably open up a number of questions concerning NASA, government installations, and of course equitable treatment for other Silicon Valley billionaires going forward. Not to mention reported ongoing community concerns regarding Moffett operations. So, I'm genuinely curious as to what you think about this? Is it a win-win situation as NASA suggests, or is it undesirable and setting a poor precedent for the future? Discussion invited. --Lauren-- | ||
| Eric Norman (Ejnorman) Member Username: Ejnorman Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2007 |
Well, I don't see what this has to do with Internet responsibility, but I'll spout off anyway. First, a fact: the biggest (or should I say smallest) bottleneck by far in the aviation industry is runway space. So let's see what we have. We have someone making more use of what would otherwise be unused runway space. Sure, it's a drop in the bucket, but every little bit helps. We have NASA getting more funds to support their mission. We have NASA getting use of some extra aircraft to conduct their scientific research. We have some rich Silicon Valley folks treating themselves like royalty at their own expense. I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is. I don't know about the controversial relationship between Moffett and private individuals, but perhaps this is the start of a change for the better. | ||
| Lauren Weinstein (Lauren) Moderator Username: Lauren Post Number: 39 Registered: 06-2003 |
Agreed, it's more an issue relating perhaps to government responsibility, but close enough for jazz (for the moment). I'm not saying that there necessarily is a problem. However, given that supposedly there have been people banging on NASA's door for quite a while looking for similar access, it would seem appropriate to understand what this means for the future. It is not unusual for issues of equitable treatment to arise when special deals (or deals perceived as special) are made with one party but not others. So, we might ask what NASA's response would be to other entities willing to cut similar deals for similar access to Moffett (or other NASA) facilities? It may turn out to be the case that this decision was not vetted at high enough levels for that question to be answered at the moment, but it's a valid question nonetheless. This is of interest not just to other private individuals who would very much like to have similar deals with government facilities around the country, but also potentially to communities who might wish to have input regarding the types of uses which are permitted at such locations (runway operations are of particular interest due to noise and related concerns, of course). Therefore, it would be useful to know how this deal was approved, by whom, and if similar arrangements will be available to other applicants -- seems like a reasonable information request to me. --Lauren-- |