Hawker-Beechcraft Has Gone Off the Deep End

Wait, let me get this straight. Hawker-Beechcraft filed for bankruptcy protection a month or two ago, presumably because the company is bleeding cash faster than the Fed (and unlike the Fed, can't just print more...). Now, the same "management" that was in place then is asking for performance bonuses that may total up to 200% annual salary for execs and managers to retain "top talent"?! I'm sorry, but what exactly have they performed, beyond apparently running a company into the ground?That is an outrage, and the city of Wichita would do well to instate taxes like New York City did in 2008/2009 to tax the living daylights out of any bonuses paid to that management crowd. Considering that Hawker execs have precipitated quite a few rounds of layoffs recently, this is a direct slap in the face for all those laid off as well as a warning to all current employees.
With that in mind, any bonuses paid should start at the bottom of payroll. I assume they're all performing well, considering that they're still showing up to work daily despite being uncertain if they'll even have a job tomorrow. In fact, start at the list of people who've been laid off. Send them all a check for 2x their last year's salary. Then continue on to current employees. Send them a check now for twice their annual salary as well. Do the same for the low-level managers. Mid-level managers are entitled to up to 150% their annual salary as incentive to not let their bosses screw them over. But moving into top-level managers, max of 100% of salary. And I'd be loath to send anything to the executives at the top who made all the decisions leading to the demise to begin with. If they want to jump ship, so be it. They obviously haven't been doing a great job anyway, so I'm sure there's plenty more actual talent out there who can properly run a company.
As an aspiring pilot, I will be forced to take my flying business elsewhere if these bonuses are approved for the management but not for employees and I will encourage any and everyone I meet to do the same as well. This is an egregious affront on American workers in Wichita and all throughout the Hawker-Beechcraft supply chain. The elected representatives in Kansas should lend their voice to the cause of the American workers as well.

space race for the 21st century

a little over 40 years ago, america landed men on the moon and they walked around. yet since then, we've returned a couple times in the years immediately following then no more. the saturn v rockets used by the apollo programs were technological marvels. apparently much more marvelous than even originally envisioned by von braun. most of us have cell phones and our cell phones are probably 1000x more powerful than the computers on board those rockets and even any computers used in designing them. we now have programs where we can design and test structural loads as well as aerodynamics on the computer without a need to build costly mockup models to test every new change and variation. (i believe boeing 777 was the first large plane designed this way.) so my real question then is why are they saying we'll need at least another decade to reach the moon again and are now doubting being able to even hit that target?
i think part of the problem is that it's a government program. although space flight was first dreamed up by private citizens such as tsiolkovsky and jules vernes and robert goddard was interested in rocketry, it wasn't until state involvement that it ever really took off (no pun intended). consequently, for the last 80 years or so, basically all major space activity has been government-funded.
but that needs to change. nasa should take a step back and reorganize. in light of the increasing budgetary pressures here in america, i don't think it would be a bad idea to have nasa take a less active role in the space program's development and operation. there now exist several private companies with capacity to lift decent payloads to varying degrees of orbit at what is becoming more and more of a bargain price. so instead of developing another lifter, nasa should simply shift to developing the payload. maybe they could guarantee a set number of launches purchased per year. or they could simply put out a list of scheduled stuff to be launched and then take bids on getting it all up. now granted i know most of the satellites today were actually not launched as payload on the space shuttle. but given the cost of the space shuttle and current advances in robotics, many things could be automated in space. (i bet astronauts weren't worried about job security because of robots lol.) that of course could also free up money to better fund human space flight to moon, mars and beyond.
but there's also another consideration. that would be international cooperation. despite apollo 11 being an american mission, we insisted it was for all mankind. and there's such things as international space station. so space flight can also be funded by partner countries. yes, icbms and satellites can be launched on the same rockets. but that needn't scare us so much that we limit ourselves in partners for space flight and exploration. india recently launched a probe to the moon, china recently orbited a manned spacecraft, and even iran has put a satellite successfully in orbit. and all this is in addition to the traditional spacefaring countries of the us (and japan) and russia and the consortium of european countries. so clearly, a little more collaboration, a little less politicking, and we could drastically lower the cost to develop and further advance space flight and access.
anyway, leave me messages, comments. if we all think together, maybe we can get more done.