Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet The Almighty Buck

A Coveted Landing Strip for Google's Founders 427

Posted by samzenpus
from the he-who-has-the-gold-makes-the-rules dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The NYT reports, "In the annals of perks enjoyed by America's corporate executives, the founders of Google may have set a new standard: an uncrowded, federally managed runway for their private jet that is only a few minutes' drive from their offices. For $1.3 million a year, Larry Page and Sergey Brin get to park their customized wide-body Boeing 767-200, as well as two other jets used by top Google executives, on Moffett Field, an airport run by NASA that is generally closed to private aircraft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Coveted Landing Strip for Google's Founders

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:32AM (#20585115)
    ...it's just badass.
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:33AM (#20585119)
    I had something witty and intelligent to write, but I just got an email notification that a message just arrived from Northwest Airlines. I get to fly in economy, those guys get to fly in their own plane.

    The only consolation is that I get to rack up miles while they don't. Are first class accomodations and free blowjobs from hand-selected stewardii worth the loss of airline mileage?

    Sadly, I don't think I'll ever know.
    • by JordanL (886154) <jordan.ledoux@gmOPENBSDail.com minus bsd> on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:49AM (#20585191) Homepage
      Does anyone else remember a time in American history when people would here something like this and go "I want to try and become like them" instead of "I want what they have" or "they can't have that because I don't"?

      Why have we as a society become so filled with entitlement and laziness? If you have the money, you can get it. If you don't have the money, work for it. These guys were nobody's once upon a time as well... it's not like the American dream is dead, it's the American dreamer that's dead.
      • by thogard (43403) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:17AM (#20585331) Homepage
        Its because making it big is 99% luck and less than 1% hard work. These guys made their money because they were in the right place at the right time which lead to meeting the right people (when the people with the money were willing to spend some). They also lucked out getting into a university that helped get them into the right place. Look at all the other dot com millionaires and look at how lucky they were to be in the right place at the right time. Even BillyG lucked out to have contacts into major companies like IBM thanks to his mother. With out her assistance, there would have been no way his company could have ever gotten the meetings that landed them their big contracts.

        I know plenty of people who worked harder but got no where mostly due to things out of their control.
        • by JordanL (886154) <jordan.ledoux@gmOPENBSDail.com minus bsd> on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:22AM (#20585351) Homepage
          Having an idea that works in the market is luck? Getting into MIT is luck?

          I think if there is one thing that is just plain hard work, it's getting into MIT.
          • by rolfwind (528248) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:38AM (#20585465)
            There are lots of people who go into MIT but never hit it big. (I'm sure they were moderately successful.)

            There are a lot of people who work hard - and the majority of 1st gen. billionaires are no exception. But reading Bill Gates history, I believe there was a definite element of luck there - right place at the right time - along with some cunning to get where they are at.

            With the same skill set and drive, just with different luck, I could definitely see Gates as head of just another software company and be worth "only" $50-100 million.

            I don't think he's the exception among the billionaires. I could see a lucky break at the difference between moderately sucessful multi-millionaire businessmen no one heard of and the ultra-rich - in fact it seem to be that the once in the lifetime jackpot is what propels them to ridiculous wealth.

            The one exception to this I think would be Steve Jobs - that guy could probably make fortunes several times over starting from scratch.
            • by kestasjk (933987) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @12:54PM (#20590321) Homepage

              The one exception to this I think would be Steve Jobs - that guy could probably make fortunes several times over starting from scratch.
              Jobs ran into Woz, Woz made excellent computers very economically using very few chips and Jobs marketed them.

              Gates surrounded himself with guys like Allen who were excellent coders and geeks, but Gates was always the one with the vision. He was an expert coder and involved himself with everything from writing legal documents to writing bootstraps and Altair emulators, and later on to giving taxing interviews to all the big project leaders to ensure they knew what they were doing as well as he knew what they were doing.
              Gates saw the first computer come out and decided to get out of school and into the PC industry, the very moment it was created.

              If Jobs hadn't run into Woz you can be sure we would never have heard of Jobs. Gates depended far less on chance bumping into others; he was far more determined and aggressive (for better or for worse) in carving out Microsoft's niche, and he played much more than the marketing&managerial role that Jobs has played.

              If you're not familiar with the story of Gates' success I recommend "Hard Drive", which documents it (it's independent of Microsoft and Gates).
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by thogard (43403)
            Somewhere I have my rejection letter from UC Berkeley. It said they had over a million applications since they filled up and they didn't even bother considering my application. That was when UCB had a better comp-sci program than MIT did. I applied the 1st day I could based on when my high school did its testing. That was just bad luck and completely out of my control. I had a better chance of getting into Stanford or MIT than most students in my state but I went to one of the best high schools in the
        • by jcr (53032) <[jcr] [at] [mac.com]> on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:52AM (#20585529) Journal
          Its because making it big is 99% luck and less than 1% hard work.

          That may be true in Hollywood, but it's not the case in the business world. Every rich person I know worked like crazy for years before they made it, and most of them still work sixty hours or more a week because they got rich doing something they love to do.

          These guys made their money because they were in the right place at the right time

          Don't forget that they also had the crucial insight that links to a page were a more useful ranking indication than keyword hits. Google isn't a case of catching IBM's fumble like Microsoft did. They had a great idea, they implemented it, and they figured out how to get paid for it.

          -jcr

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by thogard (43403)
            All the very rich people I know worked about as hard as most of my successful friends. Thats based on a small sample sizes (no billionaires but a handful of those who got 9 digit checks). They all were very lucky to be in the right place at the right time. I know lots of others others who worked hard and had it all destroyed by bad luck.

            Google making money out of the idea was a result in being able to talk to the right people at the right time. They didn't have any magic technology at hand but they were
            • by Reality Master 101 (179095) <RealityMaster101.gmail@com> on Thursday September 13, 2007 @09:16AM (#20586519) Homepage Journal

              All the very rich people I know worked about as hard as most of my successful friends.

              A ditch digger works hard. It's not just about working "hard", it's about working on the right things.

              They didn't have any magic technology at hand but they were unique compared to their competition in that they had enough resources to demo their early work.

              Almost everything looks obvious after the fact. The wheel is "obvious", yet very few cultures actually invented it.

              The fact that Google is *still* the best search engine ought to tell you something about the difficulty.

              Most what is now considered their innovation was all discussed on usenet news groups long before their research was done.

              Talk is cheap, and ideas are cheaper. The devil is in the details.

              I know lots of others others who worked hard and had it all destroyed by bad luck.

              There's no such thing as bad luck. *Everybody* encounters bad luck. There is only lack of preparation for disaster and lack for foresight for consequences.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by bannerman (60282)
                There are different ways of working hard. I know smart people that work their head off all day at a dead end job when I know they're capable of landing a much better job, but they're too lazy to make the move. No motivation.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by demi (17616) *

                Almost everything looks obvious after the fact. The wheel is "obvious", yet very few cultures actually invented it. The fact that Google is *still* the best search engine ought to tell you something about the difficulty.

                I think Google's done a great job, but this is entirely the wrong impression. Search engines were not only obvious, they were old hat, the battles already fought and decided, when Google appeared on the scene. And Google has never, by any standard measure, been the best search engine, exc

                • by Reality Master 101 (179095) <RealityMaster101.gmail@com> on Thursday September 13, 2007 @12:40PM (#20590041) Homepage Journal

                  Search engines were not only obvious, they were old hat, the battles already fought and decided, when Google appeared on the scene.

                  Indeed... which makes their success and utter domination all the more remarkable.

                  Google's "breakthrough" was being fast through distributed search, which is something that all the search engines were working on for some time.

                  What? I used a lot of search engines prior to Google, in fact, I still have them bookmarked: AltaVista, Excite, HotBot, MSN, Northern Light, Yahoo, etc. I used to search a variety of them because each one seemed to do better at various results. After Google appeared, I gradually stopped using them all, because Google consistently gave better results.

                  I don't recall Google being any faster than any of them. They all gave pretty much instantaneous results.

                  But the difference between "quite successful" and "super-rich" is luck, not hard work.

                  I might agree that the difference between "rich" and "super-rich" is mostly luck. And certainly some people get rich by attaching themselves to the right people (e.g., become one of the first 10 employees of an eventually huge IPO). But by and large, to be rich, you have to want to be rich and dedicate your thinking to that goal, and take the appropriate risks, and try again when you fail.

                  The google founders weren't smarter or harder-working than a hundred other people.

                  The issue isn't necessarily raw intelligence or level of hard work. Take 100 smart people and put them in the same situation as the Google guys. Would they fall into the same riches? I'd say "no". Technology isn't everything! You have to be able to work with people, give up control where necessary, take control when necessary, on and on. For example, Theo de Raadt is a smart, hard-working guy. Assuming he was motivated to do it, could he have created Google? Not just the search engine, the whole enchilada. Not a chance in hell, because he's an abrasive psycho.

                  Creating a successful company takes a lot of broad skills. There's a reason that 90% of start-ups fail.

          • by Guppy06 (410832) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @09:11AM (#20586453)
            "Every rich person I know worked like crazy for years before they made it,"

            Original poster didn't deny this, but simply pointed out that, for every rich person that "worked like crazy for years before they made it," there's 99 people who worked just as hard for just as long (if not moreso) that didn't.

            It's not that they don't work hard, but that working hard isn't the deciding factor.
        • by beavis88 (25983)
          You've got it backwards - it's 99% hard work, and 1% luck. The 1% luck component just happens to account for 99% of the money most of the time...
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by phoenix.bam! (642635)
          It's amazing how all the luckiest people I know are also the hardest working. I wonder why that is.
      • The only thing that makes me not want to be them is not that they are filthy rich and having fun with it, it is some of their business decisions. Specificly, the particular two tiered scheme of stock and the sheer ego when dealing with the SEC. The stock scheme leaves the Google founders with almost all of the voting rights, because their premium stock gives preferencial voting rights. This means that the shareholders have no control over a company they own, without the founders needing to worry about commo

      • by jcr (53032)
        it's not like the American dream is dead, it's the American dreamer that's dead.

        Sounds like you need to find a new social circle. Here in the silicon valley, there's no shortage of people trying to get rich and/or change the world.

        -jcr

      • by evilviper (135110) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @07:22AM (#20585643) Journal

        If you don't have the money, work for it.

        Nobody works their way to becoming multi-billionaires... There's absolutely nothing one man could do that could possibly be worth that kind of compensation.

        They, like many others, hit the stock-market lottery. There's enough stupid people that will buy stocks for millions of times what they're actually worth, that early buyers can become billionaires just because they happen to be there.

        No amount of (legal) work can guarantee you that level of riches. You can only hope to be in the right place, at the right time. You'd do just as well to buy a $1 "Power-Ball" lottery ticket as to invest many thousands of dollars (of cash, or your time/service) in some start-up, hopping it'll be the next ridiculously overhyped and unbelievably overpriced stock-market darling.

        it's not like the American dream is dead, it's the American dreamer that's dead.

        That's crap. There are more American entrepreneurs making themselves rich right now than there ever have been before. Few or none are naive enough to believe they can work enough to make themselves billionaires on merit.
        • The only way I can think of to actually earn billions would be working your way up in the very competitive real estate market. Of course, you're just as likely to go bankrupt, but the profit margins and work load are such that you can grow nearly exponentially in profits if you do it right.
        • by Speare (84249) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @10:11AM (#20587415) Homepage Journal

          Nobody works their way to becoming multi-billionaires... There's absolutely nothing one man could do that could possibly be worth that kind of compensation.

          They, like many others, hit the stock-market lottery. There's enough stupid people that will buy stocks for millions of times what they're actually worth, that early buyers can become billionaires just because they happen to be there.

          The jetstream is always moving fast, but you can't catch the jetstream if you don't fill the balloon and cut the tethers.

          Brin and Page did "hit the stock-market lottery." I agree with that. But they would not have been able to get there without actually doing some interesting stuff and telling people about it. Yes, there are a lot of people who are doing interesting stuff and telling people about it, yet don't hit the stock-market lottery. But the fact that all this interesting stuff gets done is what advances society.

          I think that's what the other posters were referring by the "American Dreamer is dead" sentiment. A dream without action is a fantasy of entitlement and resentment. A dream with action is a goal.

      • That idea, "I want to try and become like them", is still firmly an American idea. The vinegar-pissers would be more at home in a country with socialist influences, like my Netherlands. Much as I tend to like it here, the attitude that people who made it big somehow should don't deserve it is not conducive to entrepeneurialism (not sure that's a word, but you know what I mean). In fact, it's leading to an emigration wave of even mildly financially successful people.

        I also find myself occasionally thinking "
      • Ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mattgreen (701203) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @08:38AM (#20586117)
        I love the implication that the American dream is all it is cracked up to be:

        "Oh boy! Look at us! We have a private runway we can land on because we are *so* important and special!"

        It is far more impressive to see people who don't take themselves so seriously. Obviously, this s a rare trait, given the human condition of thinking oneself is at the center of the universe.
      • by GooberToo (74388)
        Does anyone else remember a time in American history when people would here something like this and go "I want to try and become like them" instead of "I want what they have" or "they can't have that because I don't"?

        Why have we as a society become so filled with entitlement and laziness? If you have the money, you can get it. If you don't have the money, work for it. These guys were nobody's once upon a time as well... it's not like the American dream is dead, it's the American dreamer that's dead.


        If I had
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GeckoX (259575)
        Just to note: There is approx. one billionaire per 4.5 million people in the US.

        Lots of people dream that dream, but know it's just that, a dream. The chances of attaining that are insane. And living your life out striving to attain that...well, lets just say you're in for a lot of disappointment.

        Besides, for a lot of people anymore, that's not the dream they want to attain. There are other worthy dreams that don't center around becoming one of the richest people on the block.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by emaname (1014225)
        First off, I don't think that the airstrip nearby is an extreme of self-indulgence. I imagine they calculated what it cost at other airstrips, travel time between HQ and the airstrip plus other costs incurred, etc. That whole cost-analysis thing. And NASA could use the extra revenue.

        But I think what people are reacting to is the excess seen in executive compensation. When the execs are getting obscene bonuses even after being only marginally effect or worse (Home Depot comes to mind), people have a right
      • by Tom (822) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @10:24AM (#20587677) Homepage Journal

        Why have we as a society become so filled with entitlement and laziness? If you have the money, you can get it. If you don't have the money, work for it. These guys were nobody's once upon a time as well... it's not like the American dream is dead, it's the American dreamer that's dead.
        The "American Dream" is, and always has been, a scam. The actual number of people who really worked their way up from dishwasher to millionaire are smaller than the number of people who became millionaires through the lottery, and we all learned the chances of that in highschool.

        So in short, we stopped following the dream when we realized it's just a dream, and the waking world is run by different rules.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DerekLyons (302214)

          The "American Dream" is, and always has been, a scam. The actual number of people who really worked their way up from dishwasher to millionaire are smaller than the number of people who became millionaires through the lottery, and we all learned the chances of that in highschool.

          Purely anecdotal evidence but... I know _three_ millionaires who did the equivalent of working up from being a dishwasher - and no lottery winners. My best friend from high school run an advertising/media company he built from sc

    • by eebra82 (907996)
      Fortunately, that's how it works. A world without hierarchy would be a world without leaders and without people with billions who can invest in ideas that could create thousands of new jobs. And why would anyone want to become a brain surgeon (aside from helping people) if it wasn't for the good money?

      Aside from my sarcasm above, a company like Google has only a few executives "up there". Don't you think their time is better spent on meetings rather than being forced to travel for hours to the airport? Y
    • "Are first class accomodations and free blowjobs from hand-selected stewardii worth the loss of airline mileage?"

      YES!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:33AM (#20585127)
    they dont seem to care about their carbon footprint, i dont see that going hand in hand with being not evil.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by wwwrench (464274)
      Yeah, I agree. Even a singleeconomy ticket on a transatlantic flight uses about a ton of CO2, which is far far more than you should be using all year for all your needs. Once the effects of high altitute emmission of the CO2 is taken into effect, the airline industry contributes 13% of our emmissions here in the U.K. and it is the fastest growing source of emmissions, effectively cancelling out all our other efforts. What is more, the airline industry is heavily subsidised, and jet fuel is not taxed. Em
      • Private jet flyers and short haul flights should just be stopped completely, there is absolutely no reason for them, and it will kill people, plain and simple.

        That's just being silly. There are reasons. You may not think they're good enough, but it doesn't stop them being reasons. For example, flights from Belfast to London could be considered short haul as they're round about an hour, but there is nothing else that can get you there in a comparable period of time because of the Irish Sea. Short haul flig

      • by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Thursday September 13, 2007 @09:16AM (#20586507) Journal
        Actually, it doesn't matter how much CO2 you emit, as long as you sink out a sufficient amount that your *net* CO2 emissions are sufficiently low. So really, instead of trying to come up with a laundry list of things people can't do because it's (in your opinion) wasteful, all that's really needed is a carbon tax sufficient to pay for the costs of sinking the emitted CO2.

        Wait -- that's under the assumption that you're actually interested in protecting the earth, and not merely coming up with the most plausible pretense for banning behaviors you don't like.
    • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:34AM (#20585447) Homepage
      Well, let's compare - a Boeing 767-200 burns (on average) about 5 tonnes of fuel per hour, or about 1500 gallons of Jet A-1. That would be enough to run my (not terribly fuel-efficient) car for around 50,000 miles.
  • Question (Score:3, Funny)

    by eclectro (227083) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:37AM (#20585137)
    So the experiments they are gonna do for NASA, are they with the nurses or on the nurses??
  • is a green-light passage for their bomb-proof motorcade and they can join APEC ... cop THAT India!
  • Link [google.co.uk]

    Start address: 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
    End address: 37.414243, -122.048793

    Start at: 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy Mountain View, CA 94043, USA

    1. Head west on Amphitheatre Pkwy toward Garcia Ave - 0.6 mi
    2. Turn left to merge onto US-101 S toward San Jose - 1.8 mi
    3. Take exit 398A for Moffett Blvd toward NASA Pkwy - 0.1 mi
    4. Turn right at Moffett Blvd - 0.3 mi
    5. Turn left at Moffett Blvd/Rte Jones Rd - 0.3 mi
    6. Turn right at King Rd - 0.4 mi
    7. King Rd turns right and beco
  • Nice one, NASA! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aladrin (926209) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:02AM (#20585251)
    I expected to see a ton of 'that's not fair!' posts here, but maybe those people don't wake up this early.

    Anyhow, good on NASA for earning another $1.3mil per year using something that they already had. I'm sure they have all kinds of stuff in the contract that prohibits Google execs from using the strip when NASA projects are actively going on, which probably happens pretty seldom. I'm sure someone will say 'drop in the bucket', but that's $1.3mil that didn't come from taxes... And that's a lot of taxes.
    • You mean you aren't paying your Google Tax?!
    • by bjourne (1034822)
      I expected to see a ton of 'that's not fair!' posts here, but maybe those people don't wake up this early.

      Alright, but we're also missing a "I'm morally superior to you" post. And here it is:

      I also make lots of money. Not as much as those guys, but still enough to make a decent living. I don't own a car and never will. Taking the bus or train when you want to go somewhere is simple, and costs less. Cars pollute and driving them, is according to most research, the primary cause of global warning. So if
  • No Ad link (Score:5, Informative)

    by jsse (254124) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:05AM (#20585273) Homepage Journal
    Click here [nytimes.com] for no ad link.

    BTW, even Bush could find this link in the article easily, so please don't mod.
  • Just a 767? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Toreo asesino (951231)
    Lame!

    This guy's got the right idea - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6768237.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    Ok, ok, so it's not like you can take the kids to the park with it, but why goto a park when you can just have your own built on-board?
  • Party airplane (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pQueue (1091881) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:11AM (#20585313)
    While being jealous of a wide-body "party airplane" landing right across the street from their office, I think this might be a good thing for NASA and Moffett Field. NASA could certainly use the money.

    I worked at the base a few years ago and the runway wasn't being used most of the time, except by the 129th rescue wing of the Air National Guard and the occasional astronaut trainer jet. The base doesn't really have any residential neighbors but that noise would carry a long distance I assume.

    If you work there and fly a private plane you can already fly to work (at least that's what I heard when I was there). But of course large commercial size jets is a different story entirely.

  • by simong (32944) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:24AM (#20585365) Homepage
    So it's still doing Google stuff. And it's going to have a portable Googleplex built in.

    *incredibly loud jet sound*
    *knock on door*
    "Hi, I'm Larry, and this is Sergei, we heard that you were having a party. We brought, well, er, the contents of the local Walmart's liquor counter."
    "Well, that's very nice... say, how did you find out about the party?"
    *shifty look*
    "You sent out invites through gmail..."
  • by lancejjj (924211) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:31AM (#20585425) Homepage
    For those who are not familiar with the operations of Moffett Field:

    Moffett has fairly extensive facilities that are not nearly as heavily utilized as they were during the cold war and WW2, and it is in the heart of Silicon Valley.

    Moffett is no longer a military base, but a federal facility that is used for many purposes - mostly but not exclusively centered around technology.

    For perhaps a decade, NASA has been leasing out commercial space to private enterprises at Moffett for not only NASA-related research operations, but for general, business operations of private institutions. In additional, there are private educational institutions at Moffett.

  • by djupedal (584558) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:37AM (#20585459)
    John Travolta gets to pull his jets right up to his house in Florida. One is a big 250,000lb, 1964 Boeing 707-138B airliner, and the other is a Gulf Stream. The garden is actually a heliport.

    The actor, according to a local newspaper, "can walk out his door, under a canopied walkway and into the cockpit [of his Boeing], open the long mechanized gate [giving on to the runway] and be airborne in minutes."
    • by turing_m (1030530)
      "and be airborne in minutes."

      Oh come now. Surely it has to take at least an hour or two to charge up the Thetan deflector shields. A clear can't be too careful these days.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      John Travolta gets to pull his jets right up to his house in Florida.

      Yes. But then John Travolta adds so
      much to our economy, both cultural and monetary...

  • ... is the end of the innocent.
  • "Two private aviation industry executives said that parking two Gulfstream Vs at San Francisco or San Jose airports would cost $240,000 to $360,000 a year, or more"

    They get to park the Gulfstreams AND the wide-body Boeing 767-200 right next door for an extra million or so. NASA makes a nice pile and gets to run some experiments. Sounds like a win-win to me.
  • We're never more than a heartbeat from our demise, any of us.
    Remind me again, the point of this coveting?
  • by apodyopsis (1048476) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @08:03AM (#20585851)
    How nice it is to see ordinary, good people who can manage the responsibility of having vast sums of money without it going to their heads...
  • I used to live on San Ramon and Middlefield (Shadows apartments). Moffett field was where President Bush landed Air Force One when he came to speak in San Jose.

    It's a big hangar where they used to (I think) work on Space Shuttle parts back in the 80s. All I can say is this: they never let Larry Ellison land his plane there. That says a whole lot. (The big story back in the early 2000s was Larry violating noise ordinances at San Jose airport.)
  • Excuse me? I'm paying for that with my taxes, why am i not getting a refund?
  • I used to work at Aames, thought the blimp hangars were totally awesome. Are they still there? Are they filled with Google Jets(tm)? Will Google Earth let us peek at the jets? (I know I could check myself, but I think I'd get more mileage out of just pondering it).
  • by Oktober Sunset (838224) <sdpage103@nOSpAm.yahoo.co.uk> on Thursday September 13, 2007 @12:09PM (#20589449)
    As much as I love Brazilian bikini waxes, I don't think this will suit them.
  • by jCaT (1320) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @12:48PM (#20590199)
    Lest anyone think they are taking up valuable government resources that could be used for something else- Moffett has been essentially idle for the last twenty years. It was decomissioned some time ago, and now the only use that the runways get is the occasional research plane for NASA and AWACS flights.

    I worked at NASA Ames (which has basically taken over the whole Moffett campus, since they're all together.) We did tours of the different areas there, and I think the most fun was touring "Hangar 1" and talking to the guys in the tower for the airstrip. They basically sat around all day drinking coffee, waiting for the one or two planes per day they had taking off or landing. The only excitement they ever got was the occasional presidential flight- when chelsea was going to Stanford, clinton would fly in to Moffett.

    I think it's a great idea, and they should do more of it- lots of land developers are salivating at the huge chunk of real estate that moffett has there. On top of that, they're trying to demolish Hangar 1 [savehangarone.org], since it's full of toxic substances, the upkeep on it is really expensive, and it's not doing anything (well, except being a stage for a recent Lexus commercial.)

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.

Working...