Thanks to everyone who replied, and to those who may still reply. I suppose what I needed was a subtle shift in point of view and several people provided clear and relevant information which allowed it... I also was under-informed.. time to update my copy of the Satellite Experimenter's Handbook :)

What I was misinterpreting is the balance between "what we know works" and "new and experimental". I was under the impression that too much emphasis was being placed on the later, however with a bit of research spurred by the conversation it seems a bit more like ensuring operation by modest stations was a design characteristic of some of the newer sats.

I'm still a little skeptical of the SDR transponder, and I probably fall under the category of those who feel that maybe there should be an analog backup, but if it will help with "Alligatoring" I'm all for it (speaking as a small low-budget station..hihi)

There is a sort of paradigm shift when you stop thinking of a bird as a "repeater in the sky" and more as, for example, "a martian mission test bed (that also has some parts you get to play with)".

I think there is room for both "bleeding edge" and "old stand-by" technology in the amateur satellites, but perhaps my own personal bias tends to lean a bit more conservative in terms of how much of each the final mix should be.

As someone said, a model T may be reliable but would you want to drive one to work? Well, maybe not.. but I wouldn't want to commute in an F-16 either! There's a good middle ground somewhere.

Thanks again for the good responses, they answered a lot of my questions.

73,

Jason - N1XBP