Section 4: Conclusion

[plasky]

Add issues about the Conclusion here

[jade-powell]

• [x] Line 557 reads funny.

• [ ] Also, the science deliverables are also not mentioned at all in the conclusion.

[A-Graham]

• [x] Wow! The punchline really comes in the final sentence.
  A reference right at the end of this final sentence is required/missing. Do you really wish to mention the opportunity of an Australian-based facility in only the final sentence?

• [x] Readers may also find themselves wondering about the budget. That is, show it is a realistic venture and not a pipe dream.

• [x] It may be appropriate to mention any benefits of a GW interferometer in the southern hemisphere, and to provide a reference to northern hemisphere teams expressing an interest in such a location.

• [ ] You may also like to mention some technology spin-offs from past work on GW interferometers.

[plasky]

Thanks for these comments @A-Graham. I've added another sentence earlier in the paper that mentions the specific OzHF concept, but we also want to be careful not to oversell this facet. We are trying to tread a fine line in making the paper scientific (because realistically, the science deliverables from such an instrument are practically independent of the site location). We see this paper certainly as a necessary step to getting an Australian detector, but it is still a little removed from government lobbying, etc.

[Nangush]

• [ ] Line 761 Extreme Matter Observatory is used instead of Neutron star Extreme Matter Observatory.