Tasso has addressed many of the questions Bryan asked about the LBA, but I would like to briefly follow-up on another question Bryan asked:
> Why is stopping CSIRO support for LBA/VLBI not being considered? > At the very least, one could argue that LBA does not need to be > offered at the National Facility level.
I think the strongest argument for continuing to offer the LBA at the National Facility level is that ATNF makes the major contribution to the LBA, and the best way to ensure these resources are being used productively is to have LBA proposals graded by the same TAC that reviews all other ATNF proposals.
In addition, scheduling of LBA blocks is driven in part by the constraints of ATNF telescopes, such as ATCA configurations, and construction of the schedule for each LBA block involves coordinating observations with the requirements, for example, for Parkes receiver changes, and so this role sits naturally with ATNF.
ATNF will have to scale back on some of its current activities to enable ASKAP to be constructed and operated, and Bryan's underlying point, that all current activities deserve equal scrutiny, is correct. Identifying changes that can be made while minimising the impact on ATNF's recognised strengths is of course a challenging task, but the postings to this forum are contributing to the debate and discussion this task requires.
