However, the threat to Arecibo and the VLBA should not be underestimated. As far as the report is concerned the NSF should withdraw funding from them. The bit about the SKA and Arecibo doesn’t make much sense – the SKA will not be a single dish, and will not be operating for at least a decade after the proposed closure date of Arecibo. If any of the US telescopes is replaced by the SKA, it is the (E)VLA – which is an interferometer with a smaller area and lower resolution than the proposed SKA.

Gary 7

The National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which are heavily subscribed by other communities, should seek partners who will contribute personnel or financial support to the operation of Arecibo and the Very Long Baseline Array respectively by 2011 or else these facilities should be closed.

The italics for emphasis. They appear to be saying that the VLA facilities are heavily used by other organizations. Thus, they are footing the overhead for other groups’ use.

Further reading in the section provides the followiing comments:

In any case, Arecibo’s longer term future depends upon progress with the SKA [Square Kilometer Array] which will be fully steerable, have ten times the collecting area, will access more of the sky to higher frequency and will have the angular resolution of an interferometer, leaving Arecibo as a niche telescope.

In other words, the NSF if funding the building of a new larger, steerable, more capable telescope to replace Arecibo. Arecibo would either need to find alternative funding, or they would decommission it because they do not have funding to operate both facilities, so they eliminate the least capable one.

Roughly 45 percent of the VLBA PIs are not resident in the US and the majority of new applications are being pioneered by foreign users. Furthermore the oversubscription rate, currently 1.5, the lowest for all major US facilities, is small and falling. To some extent this is a consequence of the university VLBI groups disbanding when their federal support was diverted to pay for the construction of the VLBA. However, it is also a tribute to the Open Skies policy and a testament to the international nature of the VLBI community. However, when combined with the observation above that roughly half the VLA PIs are foreign, it does raise the question of sharing the cost of operations of these premier
facilities.
Given this situation, and invoking Principles 1 and 6, the SR recommends that NRAO be directed to seek assistance in operating the VLBA for a finite time from the international user community and, perhaps, also from NASA and the Japanese Institute of Space and Astronautical Science where there is a strong synergy with its missions. The primary economy that is needed is in personnel cost and, in the case of VLBI, this assistance could be in the form of trained personnel who would work in the Socorro Operations
Center and perhaps at the remote telescope sites, relieving NRAO staff. These astronomers and technical staff would be paid and supported by their home institutions and this would presumably be easier to negotiate than a straight currency transfer to pay the salaries of NRAO personnel.

In other words, the NSF mandate is to primarily support American astronomical research. The VLF is being primarily used by researchers from other countries and other agencies. It is, therefore, a reasonable expectation that those organizations take on the overhead of operating the facilities and free up the NSF personnel to staff telescopes that are being used by American researchers. Like their new, more capable facilities in the SKA. Read also section 5.3.1.3.

5.3.1.3 Very Large Array
In view of its current high scientific productivity relative to its operating cost and the promise of the upgrade, the (E)VLA should remain part of the RMS base program beyond the horizon of this report.47 The SR believes that it should be possible to operate the VLA after the upgrade is completed with a similar budget ($11M operations and $17M burdened). There is some concern, discussed in Sec. 6.2.4 in the context of the VLBA, about the roughly 50 percent fraction of foreign users. Although this is
compensated by US access to international RMS facilities, consistent with the federal Open Skies policy, there is an implied lack of competitive involvement by US astronomers. There is also concern about the low percentage (ten percent) of student users.

In other words, their actual recommendation is to upgrade the VLA facilities and continue to operate them, but only if the agencies using the telescopes contribute to their operational costs. Seems fair.

Seems to me, Rob, that because you heard/read about the closure and only saw Phil’s lighter posting, you rushed to the conclusion that Phil wasn’t interested. That doesn’t seem fair. News takes time to spread, especially when one is away from their primary means of getting that information. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Mark Martin is right– this report is not an official NSF declaration, it is a recommendation by the Senior Review. Also, they say that unless funding is found, then by 2011 VLBA and Arecibo should be shut down. That’s a very different situation that what you said. Although the Senior Review report is taken very seriously, I don’t think the NSF must follow it. And even if they do follow it, I’ll reiterate that the report does not say those facilities must be shut down, only that they should be if more money isn’t found.

And that quip about me only caring about telescopes that fly is unfair, and IMO over the line. I can take a lot of heat from people, obviously, but I’d prefer the discourse here remain civil, whether it’s about me or anyone else.

Here’s the report that Rob refers to, particularly page 64:

http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/seniorreview/sr-report.pdf

It doesn’t exactly say that these facilities are to be shut down. It does warn that funding prioritisation will make closures a real threat within the next few years, unless the managing institutions aggressively seek out co-funding with international sources.

Gary 7

GAry 7