Has AMSAT ever taken a survey to find out what the membership wants for future satellites, or are we so insignificant that our wants do not matter, just as long as the dollars keep flowing toward AMSAT? How many of us would rather see a couple of FM birds put into orbit, rather than the difficult to work satellites? How many of us members have their fun on the FM birds? I know that I do, roving, etc. The simplicity of the FM birds made satellite radio fun. A handheld antenna and one or two HT's out in a corn field or a park, giving different grids to those who need them. Just an opinion. Brad Smith KC9UQR In a message dated 2/1/2021 1:02:26 PM Central Standard Time, n8fgv@usa.net writes: Hams are not poor, many of us are willing to spend thousands on the latestradio gear, and DX-peditions have raised substantial amounts of money tofinance trips to remote islands so that contributors can get a rare QSL card.We have the financial means but are lacking the organization. We have toconvince members that if they can spend $2000 on a new radio then they canalso send a $2000 check to AMSAT if they want new satellites in orbit. Some of our members are quite satisfied with low orbit FM satellites and thinkthat keeping these in space is the top priority. Many others still rememberthe days of AO-10, AO-13 and AO-40 (when it was working). Many of thosemembers became discouraged and left AMSAT when we failed to replace thosesatellites with new ones. We can keep the LEO sats in orbit for those who wantthem by offering our radio boards to universities and other groups who want tobuild CubeSats but don't know a lot about radio. To serve the long terminterests of the amateur radio community we must set our sights on larger,more powerful and higher satellites, and we will probably have to pay forthose launches because the era of free launches for satellites larger than aCubesat is gone and not coming back. Fortunately the newly emerging privatespace industry offers launch options for much less money than the days when wegot "free" launches from the government. The short lifetime of Phase 3D is a valid point, it was intended to last muchlonger except for a simple and avoidable mistake. The trouble is that P3D wasa one of a kind mission with no possibility of a follow up mission. FutureAMSAT HEO programs must be ongoing programs in which the lessons learned fromearlier satellites can feed into subsequent missions. AMSAT must also provethat we are capable of learning lessons from ours and other's failures andapplying them to new satellites. AMSAT has to prove that it is capable andworthy of such support, because we are only as good as our last failure. Thepetty bickering that has occurred recently has to end so that we can present aprofessional appearance to outsiders. I was working in the Hubble control center when the flawed mirror wasdiscovered. Much has been written about why the conflicting optical tests werenot followed up, but the project WAS behind schedule and over budget andCongress was looking at cancellation if it fell any further behind. Scheduleand budget pressure are very real worries for NASA missions. I will simplypoint out that NASA repaired the flawed telescope within three years atminimal cost and the telescope has worked flawlessly for over 30 years now andis still going strong. That is a pretty successful failure. And NASA runs theCubeSat Launch Initiative and deploys many of them from the ISS, so itobviously does support CubeSats. Dan Schultz N8FGV