An Interaction Methodology to Collect and Assess User-Driven Requirements to Define Potential Opportunities of Future Hyperspectral Imaging Sentinel Mission

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Hyperspectral imaging is a powerful remote sensing technology. And the European Commission is intending to evaluate the overall potential utility of a complementary Copernicus hyperspectral mission to be added to the Copernicus Sentinels feet. In this study, an interaction methodology was used to assess the user-driven requirements to demonstrate the potential benefits. Although the study itself is of valuable, a major revision would be necessary before acceptance for publication in this journal.

1. The English is adequate, but could be improved with additional proofreading. In line 633, there is only one section in chapter 4. Is it necessary to separate it?
2. In line 482 and 484, the author said, “(AF-1÷AF-3, AF-11)” and “(AF-9÷AF-10)”. What is the meaning of “÷” here?
3. I think introduction is too long. And the author did not introduce the existing research on user requirements analysis methods. The introduction should be more concise and to the point.
4. The innovative content of this paper lies in the evaluation of the importance of user requirements. It is suggested to supplement the flow chart of user requirement evaluation.
5. The fatal problem in this paper is the discussion focuses on the macro content rather than the user application requirements evaluation or the design of satellite payload parameters, which the readers may pay more attention to.

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

in order to be able to publish this paper severe changes must be made, although topic is interesting and relatively new. First off, this paper is way too long to keep a reader interested and willing to finish reading the paper. Some of the facts that are stated in article are known and easily found via web. Moreover several paragraphs lead to nowhere and are only mentioned once. My recommendation is to reduce paper for about 10-12 pages.

For example: lines from 77-90 are well known facts and are not necessary here as well lines from 167 to 172.

Chapters 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are bunch of facts with no interest to reader or any impact on your study design or results or whatsoever later in text.

Figure 2, 3 and 5 are not necessary, are hard to read and it is hard to expect from readers to check all the facts and all the legal documents. Not to mention that this figures should be tables.

Table 3 has too many information and it leads nowhere.

On Figure 9 left side is not readable - text is too small.

Figure 12 should be Table and more relevant it should be more clear to read.

Figure 13 is not readable.

I can tell that huge effort is put into writing this paper. However, it is too long and therefore more suitable for some review study, not for scientific article. Try to keep it short and concise.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well written paper that is based on a substantial body of work by the authors. The paper outline in complete detail a methodology and analysis tools to obtain an accurate representation of the user needs of a potential hyperspectral satellite and evaluate the effect of these needs on the specification of the capabilities of the hyperspectral sensor. This matching of the user needs to a new technology is a vital exercise that is first far from trivial and second, a required result as a decisional tool for space agencies. The results presented will therefore be of current and vital interest to the community of scientists concerned with the development of space borne hyperspectral satellites and their data processing. For the reasons above I recommend publication of this paper.

I have only noted two minor typos in the text:

Line 135: “Whether the user needs” should be replaced by: “When the user needs”

Line 163: “services by to both” should be replaced by: “services to both”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

you have improved your paper significantly. I believe that now is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review.