Lots of mis-information here.
When an airliner closes the door, and leaves the gate, the captain of aircraft (pilot in command) is in absolute control of the aircraft by federal regulations. If the pilot in command believes that a stop is necessary for the safety of the passengers, crew, and aircraft then a stop will be made. You can be sure that if the airline believes that the pilot in command wasn't justified in his decision, based upon the judgement of the airlines chief pilot, then that pilot may loose his job. Any non-stop flight can stop along the way due to a whole host of reasons. Airlines have been sued by people who thought that they should have stopped but didn't. Maybe a passenger had a medical condition, like a bad hang nail, and requested medical attention. At that point the pilot in command has to make a very difficult decision. Additionally, while the aircraft is at the gate the aircraft is fueled. The more fuel that's put aboard the less payload can be carried. It's a real balancing act. If the pilot had a crystal ball and knew exactly what the weather conditions would be along the way, better decisions could be made.
The news reports did say that there had been some unusual weather conditions aloft causing a lot of headwinds. Of course when this happens the over the ground speed of the plane slows down and the aircraft runs low on fuel.
Flight information regarding the position of the aircraft along the way most likely is coming from a private company called INMARSAT. They have a service called Sat-C that provided regular position reports. We used the same service on ships. I am familiar with the equipment. I doubt that NASA is involved here.
The nice video Tom had linked was a little mis-informed. The commentator did say that the aircraft was being tracked by ATC. He did use the words Arctic, but of course what he should have said was 'air traffic control', that's what ATC means. Radar (ATC) can only be used for a tiny fraction of the route. Radar has a very limited range. INMARSAT is the real workhorse here.
What you have here is airlines struggling to make a profit, they moved into more efficient aircraft to reduce costs like any good corporation should do. Would blame them if you were a stock holder? Unusual weather conditions were working against them and they had to make unscheduled stops that looked bad for them. Do you really think the company wanted to do things that way? Would it look a lot worse if an aircraft ran out of fuel, crashed & killed all aboard? Is this a NASA conspiracy? Are the Masons at fault for producing a defective earth map? All some really good questions but I'm sure that most really believe that the whole problem is just some unusual weather conditions that eventually will change.