Review Reports
by
- Andrei V. Panteleev * and
- Aleksandr V. Lobanov
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic discussed in this paper focuses on the optimal deterministic control of satellites and propose a mini-batch heuristic method to tackle the issue.
The article is interesting, yet I have few comments:
- The literature should be improved, as also a good fraction of the cited paper relates to self citations
- In the abstract, the topic discussed in the case study should be better described
- A comparison with the state-of-the-art is recommended
- Conclusions should be improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is a continuation of the conference paper:
Application of the mini-batch adaptive method of random search (MAMRS) in problems of optimal in mean control of the trajectory pencils,
according to the similarity report.
The algorithmic steps are fully described, but authors might want to consider adding a flow chart to better illustrate it.
The zero-order optimizing feature, written in the state of novelty, is not discussed in the manuscript.
It is an advantage of the proposed algorithm that no gradient information is required.
149
Is anything missing after min_{K}? (please ignore if not)
154
Why are alpha and beta set to these values? Are they related to the golden ratio?
228
The phrase 'satellite trajectories' could be misleading because what's shown in this figure (and others) are angular velocities, not position coordinates.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the detailed description of methodology section, I do not see significant difference of improvement of the algorithms used in "Application of the mini-batch adaptive method of random search (MAMRS) in problems of optimal in mean control of the trajectory pencils"
The explanation of the result is insufficient. Rather than presenting the result. Detailed explanation is expected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors answered my questions.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addresses the previous concerns about the manuscript. The explanation of the methodology is sufficiently explained.