Noone is questioning whether the volunteers worked their butts off. What we're talking about is that the AMSAT community (at least some, anyway) have an expectation of performance equivalent to what would be provided by full-time paid staff. Well, as long as it's volunteers only, that expectation is not reasonable (IMHO).
Mark.
"level of performance".
No one at least in their right mind would expect a "volunteer" to equal the work through put of a paid employee...
For example..in The Church of Christ (where I worship) any fool can get into the pulpit and preach...and the other hand the preacher is expected to have three sermons a week ready to go...
But the volunteers need to have similar levels of competency in the tools being used as the Preacher or they should not be allowed into the pulpit in the first place.
It is like tower climbing...I dont do it as fastl as the folks who professionally climb the 1000 footer that our clubs machine is on...but for the team that does it to get on the tower...we had to meet a minimium level of competency and demonstrate that.
No matter how it is spun suitsat 1 was a failure.
Good engineering standards would dictate figuring out the weak links and then correcting them trying something that perhaps was a bit more "sophisticated" but not all that much more...if for no other reason to make sure that the methods that defeat the failure are well understood.
Instead what happened is that the "team" put together a project so complicated that they missed their free launch.
I dont care how good the engineering is to miss a free launch is bad management.
That reality seems to bite some folks
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/