Google To Lease and Refurbish Naval Air Base For Space Exploration 89
Taco Cowboy writes Google has signed a long-term lease for part of a historic Navy air base, where it plans to renovate three massive hangars and use them for projects involving aviation, space exploration and robotics. The giant Internet company will pay $1.16 billion in rent over 60 years for the property, which also includes a working air field, golf course and other buildings. The 1,000-acre site is part of the former Moffett Field Naval Air Station on the San Francisco Peninsula. Google plans to invest more than $200 million to refurbish the hangars and add other improvements, including a museum or educational facility that will showcase the history of Moffett and Silicon Valley, according to a NASA statement. The agency said a Google subsidiary called Planetary Ventures LLC will use the hangars for "research, development, assembly and testing in the areas of space exploration, aviation, rover/robotics and other emerging technologies." NASA plans to continue operating its Ames Research Center on the former Navy site. Google will take over operations at the runways and hangars, including a massive structure that was built to house dirigible-style Navy airships in the 1930s. NASA said the deal will save it $6.3 million in annual maintenance and operation costs.
who'd ever thought... (Score:1)
starfleet would be started by a search engine.
Re:who'd ever thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going with Ferengi, and not Starfleet.
I'm no longer willing to attribute quite so noble goals to Google. It's all about the rules of acquisition.
Think Grand Nagas, not Ghandi.
You must be forgetting the Millenium Gate... (Score:2)
Of course you gotta be really die-hard to watch that Voyager series [memory-alpha.org]...
It will probably all start with a run-down shopping mall, using partially decommissioned airforce bases (like the Presidio) will come later...
Re: (Score:2)
the search engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like NASA finally figured out a way to deal with the Hazmat situation at the hangar.
Since Google simply leased the land and is NOT the owner, it wouldn't surprise me if NASA (aka the US govt) is still the entity on the hook for paying for the Hazmat situation at the hangar so that Google can redevelop it. Sadly that's how these private-public partnerships usually work out...
Re: (Score:2)
For an airbase that dates back to World War One, I'd dare say that NASA and the federal government deserve to do some hazmat cleanup of their own mess in this situation. Why do you think it should all be dumped onto Google in this case?
The folks that really should be paying for that cleanup, if any funds are targeted at a specific agency, should be the U.S. Navy. It is an old airship hanger that predates NASA by decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing... BUT (Score:5, Insightful)
...how can a publicly traded company possibly justify such investments to stockholders?
Re: (Score:2)
"...how can a publicly traded company possibly justify such investments to stockholders?"
Why? It's not as if they would buy a naval airbase, they're just renting one.
Re:Amazing... BUT (Score:4, Funny)
Easy:
"With these resources, we will be able to launch aerial armed drones against everyone who uses hostile browser plugins to combat our advertising!"
Straying from the topic of importance (Score:2)
Business Judgment Rule + Loads of Capital (this is less than .5% of their current market cap spent over 60 years) + calling it R+D = no problem for the execs/board.
Their market cap is irrelevant here. They are spending a billion dollars (over 60 years) of CASH on this transaction. Even for a company like Google that is not a trivial amount of money. If I was a shareholder I'd definitely want some sort of explanation regarding what the heck they are up to. They've got a good track record so benefit of the doubt would likely be granted but the reason for this isn't immediately obvious to most of us.
Honestly, the biggest issue the shareholders would probably have is the museum/educational facility, but even that will probably be easily justified the same way that public outreach and charitable donations are.
The biggest issue the shareholders *should* have is how/when this wi
Re: (Score:2)
You've got your dividends, and they're free to do whatever they please with what's left of their profits.
It's not their profits and they aren't free to do whatever they please, even when a majority of shareholders go with it.
Companies are not for the benefit of management (Score:2)
Rightly pissed about what? You've got your dividends, and they're free to do whatever they please with what's left of their profits
Let me guess, you've never owned a company right? Because if you had you couldn't possibly say something so stupid unless you were trolling.
The shareholders own the company. All of it. Not just the dividends. If the management spends money irresponsibly then that is money that comes out of the hide of the shareholders. Sometimes people (such as yourself) forget this fact and the results are almost always bad for the company. The company isn't run for the benefit of management. The company is there fi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think it is a bit more complicated than this.
Typically the shareholders can replace the Board of Directors who can then fire the CEO and all the other CXXs. But there are few provisions for shareholders to directly veto a company's strategies or tactics.
That a potty-mouthed, chair-throwing, murder-threatening monkey dancer could hang on as the CEO of the most successful corporation ever while managing to repeatedly bungle every opportunity an evolving market presented makes it clear that sharehold
Market cap is about expecations - not reality (Score:2)
It's not irrelevant at all. It's a measure of the company's size, health, and revenue generating potential.
Wrong! Market cap is a measure of EXPECTATIONS about the company's size, health and revenue generating potential. The key word there is expectation and that word makes all the difference in the world. Market cap is in no way shape or form tied directly to the performance of the company. It is a second order characteristic of a secondary market. It is quite literally the sum of a bunch of people betting on how good they think the future prospects of the company are much like betting on a horse race. It
Why rent an airfield? (Score:2)
Just under 17 million dollars per year to rent an enormous amount of space in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the US seems like a bargain.
And why does an advertising company need to rent an airfield? There are plenty of good deals to be had but that doesn't mean Google should be chasing them all.
And if it was such a bargain then one might fairly ask why no one beat Google to it? Not like it hasn't been there for the last 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
good will in the city that's bringing them a great deal of grief
Re: (Score:2)
See a previous post of mine.
Google has long been interested in using stratospheric stations to get around the last mile problem (and probably put Comcast and Verizon out of business). Moffett Field has a huge dirigible hangar. Building a Hindenberg sized drone that could stay on station 60 miles above Salt Lake City and provide Internet service to every household in the Pacific and Mountain time zones could be done today, using yesterday's technology. I'm sure that Google has something in mind that uses co
Not an explanation (Score:2)
Google has long been interested in using stratospheric stations to get around the last mile problem
That would not solve the last mile problem for places with existing infrastructure. Even in places without it you'd need some specialized gear and the performance wouldn't likely be amazing. Furthermore it still doesn't explain why they needed to purchase an airfield lease for 60 years for a rather substantial sum when their business is advertising.
(and probably put Comcast and Verizon out of business)
Riiiight... I wouldn't hold your breath for that to happen any time soon.
Building a Hindenberg sized drone that could stay on station 60 miles above Salt Lake City and provide Internet service to every household in the Pacific and Mountain time zones could be done today, using yesterday's technology.
I think you are grossly underestimating the technical problems involved. Such a solu
Re: (Score:2)
Google is an advertising company
You keep saying that. Do you really think if you say that enough, it will magically become true?
"IBM is a hardware company." That's why it was called International Business Machines. Nope. Not any more. Not since the 1980s. Like the Doctor, IBM regenerates. Once in the 1960s when it went from typewriters and hollerith card management machines, and once between 1988 and 1998 when it went from computer hardware to service.
"Microsoft is a software company." Nope. Now it is big into consoles, phones, and al
Google is an advertising company (Score:2)
You keep saying that. Do you really think if you say that enough, it will magically become true?
I say it because it is true. Google makes well over 90% of its revenue from advertising. Everything else they do is a rounding error from a revenue and profit perspective. What else would you call them? They might become something else someday but they ARE an advertising company. Virtually every product they make is based on enhancing or protecting their advertising business. Email, maps, search, etc are all about increasing context sensitive ad revenue. Android is a defensive play to keep phone make
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, there is an excellent reason for this, I'm guessing.
Moffet Field has these big hangars because at one time dirigibles were built there. For some time Google has been exploring ways of getting Internet connectivity to hard to reach places using stratospheric platforms. Leasing Moffet Field's hangars makes perfect sense.
This might not be a matter of putting cell phones in the hands of everyone who lives in the Amazon jungle. Picture a drone the size of the Hindenberg that could stay on station, 60 miles
Re: (Score:2)
When you make people 250% gains in 4yrs, you can do whatever the hell you want... they aren't taking their money out.
Past performance does not predict future results (Score:2)
When you make people 250% gains in 4yrs, you can do whatever the hell you want... they aren't taking their money out.
Maybe not over this specifically but if I'm a shareholder and I see a number of "investments" like this which aren't explained and I don't understand then I would be nuts not to reconsider whether it remains a good investment. I've seen plenty of companies get successful and then start throwing lots of money at stupid stuff just because they can. Google has had a good run but there is no guarantee that it will continue or that management won't drop the ball. Only an idiot invests their money in a company
Re: (Score:2)
From the Mel Brooks documentary, History of the Googleplex, Part I:
Wondering why (Score:2)
...how can a publicly traded company possibly justify such investments to stockholders?
They may have a good explanation but I had exactly the same question. On first pass this seems like a very irresponsible investment. If I was a significant shareholder I would definitely want an explanation why they committed tens of millions of dollars to something so far outside their core business. Might be fine but an explanation is in order at least to the board and the shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the publicly traded aspect of Google actually less than 50% of issued shareholdings? So it doesn't matter what the stockholders think, they still can't control the direction of the business because they are still a minority holding...
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of true. More than 50% of the value of the company has been distributed to public shareholders, but the founders and a small group of people have voting rights on almost anything that matters where the other investors only get profits and little say in public governance.
Why you would bother investing in such a company is sort of beyond me, but then again it is something you should know when investing in Google stock. Those shares with voting rights, however, are very valuable indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
They just got 1,000 acres in SF for $1.3B, that probably represents pennies on the dollar compared to the retail value of the land. My guess would be they put two office buildings on the periphery of the site and that easily justifies the expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, from this pdf [ca.gov] from the city of Sunnyvale the land cost per acre for development is $3-5 million, still high enough that getting access to even a fraction of the 1,000 acres easily pays for the lease cost.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
Because they are essentially renting the space next door to their new campus, and hanger space?
Re: (Score:2)
Trivially - because in all respects that matter, Google isn't a publicly traded company. There's two classes of stock and the one you can go buy as GOOG has no voting rights, no dividend rights, and is second in line for the assets of the company in the event of dissolution. The one that you can't buy on the open market has all those rights - and those shares are only held by a small circle of insiders and vulture capitali
HAHA, you think Google votes are publicly traded (Score:2)
...how can a publicly traded company possibly justify such investments to stockholders?
Most of google voting stock is owned by company insiders. I hear 3 people basically control the voting rights to the company. Modern stock issues are a scam.
The new Class C shares have no voting rights. The Class A shares have one vote each, but collectively those votes are dwarfed by the 10-votes-per-share Class B shares. Those shares, which do not trade in the public market, are owned by Google insiders, who will also get Class C shares in the distribution ...----... The split was first proposed nearly two years ago as part of a plan to "preserve the corporate structure that has allowed Google to remain focused on the long term." ...---.... As originally proposed by the company, the move would have made it easy for Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and the chairman, Eric E. Schmidt, to cash in a large part of their holdings without giving up their voting control. But that ability has been limited after the company settled a class action suit filed by angry (Class A) shareholders, and reached agreements with the three top officials to limit their sales.
Basically they want the benefits of a public corp without the responsibilities. So yeah, they don't have to justify jack to stock holders. Remember, if you don't know who the sucker in the room is after 5 hands, the sucker is you.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/03/investing/google-stock-split/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.... [nytimes.com] http://www.busin [businessweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically:
Seems reasonable. (Score:3)
Golf course! (Score:1)
It has a golf course. Hangers make great party rooms.
What a bargain! (Score:3)
$20MM per year in rent for an airfield, golf course, and of course the hangars! Google got a steal; they likely paid more for parking rights for their planes.
Google got some 'splaining to do... (Score:2)
$20MM per year in rent for an airfield, golf course, and of course the hangars! Google got a steal; they likely paid more for parking rights for their planes.
Because a golf course clearly adds value to a company like Google. [/sarcasm]
I'm a little mystified by this. If I was a shareholder (I'm not) my eyebrows would have shot up hard over a purchase like this. They may have a perfectly logical explanation but whatever the reason for this transaction is needs to be explained to the board and probably the shareholders because at first glance this doesn't seem to be a responsible use of cash. "Because it's cool" isn't an adequate answer when you are committing
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Google has been parking their private jets at Moffett Field for years now. The only difference is that they no longer need an act of Congress to keep them at the field.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NOOO!! Mythbusters needs it! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you think Google won't allow MythBusters to use it? You gotta think most Googliers watch MB religiously.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And besides that, this is probably last season of Mythbusters. Major cast reshuffling (e.g., firing the on-air "B" build-team for probably budget vs viewership reasons) is a sure sign that they've been threatened with cancelation by the network...
In SI for the non-US readers (Score:4, Informative)
1000 acres = 4 square kilometers or 404 hectares
404 (Score:2)
404 not found. ;)
No taxes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what the emphasis of the Delaware registration is. Delaware is well-known to be the best place in the US to register a business. Most companies of any appreciable size are registered in Delaware.
Happens a lot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Richards-Gebauer near Kansas City has been turned into an intermodal rail/road hub, IIRC.
It's just search (Score:1)
This is where Mythbusters does their stuff... (Score:2)
Likely they won't have access to the giant hangar anymore...
Hanger 1 is big. No, really. (Score:2)
A few years back when the Navy was still at Moffat, I went to the open house during Fleet Week. They had a lot of interesting stuff going on. Some of the displays were set up in hanger 1, so I wandered in a side door and was looking at displays -- then I heard what sounded like the burner for a hot air balloon. When I looked toward the sound, I noticed it *was* a hot air balloon. They had a couple of balloons set up in a back corner, and they were giving people hot air balloon rides *inside* of hanger 1
A new 'Sewards Folly' (Score:1)
What a spectacular deal!!
For less than $20mm/yr, a relative pittance, Google gets 60 years on a square mile of land right next to Silicon Gulch.
There is surely a longer term plan to make this into GoogleWorld, just extend the lease in a few decades.
Google leadership has not lost its smarts.
Re: (Score:2)
And because it's federal land, what they build on it won't be subject to poisonous San Francisco politics.
Oh no! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We used to look up and wonder about our place in (Score:1)