I'll limit my comments to two issues:
Ham radio is about communicating. If we want to turn its primary task into "education" then it will look very very different.
Part 97.1 tells us what the intended (not always realized, it must be said) purpose of amateur radio is. it certainly is intended to be a communication service, but the regulations also recognize the importance of education in Part 97.1(c):
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
Education (particularly self-education) has always been a principle of amateur radio. Indeed, from 97.3(a)(4), the definition of amateur service:
(4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
It does list "intercommunication", but it also lists "self-training" and "technical investigations", which certainly have a clear educational mandate. I admit that most hams don't seem to take this educational mandate very seriously, but it is there, and I applaud AMSAT in their educational efforts. In the grand scheme of things, I think having school kids talk to astronauts in orbit probably does more social good than allowing hams work DX.
Secondly, regarding the chances of success of ARISS-Sat-1, first, I hope you are wrong. I hope it is successful, and that the SDX transponder provides some unique opportunities for radio amateurs. As to whether flying such a payload is a reasonable use of this rare launch opportunity, I think it clearly is. Yes, we could kick a very basic linear transponder out of the ISS, and it would float around in LEO and allow you to make some contacts, but so what? What purpose would be served? To get to _affordable_ amateur satellites, we have to find a way to actually pay for launches. This means (among other things) limiting mass, and that means relying on the benefits that digital control can in controlling and minimizing power consumption. You can't just run a bent pipe transponder on a 1U cubesat and expect anything useful to develop. We need to think
Robert also mentioned the decreasing satellite population. It isn't decreasing because satellites are becoming more expensive: indeed, as Bob Bruninga has pointed out, the actual hardware costs of satellites have fallen dramatically. The problem is that we can't get people to donate free launches to get our stuff into orbit. AO-10 had a mass of about 90kg. Arianspace wants 1.8 million euros to launch that into HEO orbit. The cost of the development and construction of the satellite is just the smallest fraction of that cost. To make satellite launches affordable, we need to figure out new ways to shrink the mass, provide careful power control, and either accept lower orbits or figure out new ways to boost satellites to higher orbits (I find the micropropulsion work to be very interesting).
It's a pity we can't harness the power of complaining to boost things to orbit...
73 Mark K6HX