I really don't see a lack of communication. A technical committee trying to design one of the transponders determined that it needed a separate uplink band and was asked to recommend the best frequency. This turned out to be S1 (2.4 GHz) for good technical reasons. A technical committee must make recommendations based on sound engineering principles and not fudge the results based on political correctness. This lets the decision makers make tradeoffs based on real facts. The fact that the recommendation was published to the membership allowed members to comment before a decision was made.
In addition to S1/C, two alternatives, LS2/C (1.26 & 3.4 GHz up / 5.85 Ghz down) and C/X (5.65 Ghz up / 10.45 GHz down) were also discussed. These are less desirable due to the fact that one penalizes European hams and the other raises the cost of the satellite. However, all decsions are compromises based on acheiving the greatest good for the geatest number of people.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Shutt" al7cr@amsat.org To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 18:24 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] A Reply to Mr. McGwier
This to me fully supports the view that the designers wish to be funded to build what they wish and not what the amateur satellite community wish to operate. I do not believe attempting to squelch the free exchange of views is helpful. ... The current debate started as a result of a lack of communication from the designers. There will certainly be more if the situation does not improve. The designers must realize that communication with the folks from whom they expect support is as much a part of assuring a successful project as the hardware design.