A Multiple Agile Satellite Staring Observation Mission Planning Method for Dense Regions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents an improved heuristic ant colony algorithm. Improvements include utilizing the task interval, task priority, and length of the task start observation time as heuristic information, and introducing a max-min ant system to regulate pheromone concentration, and fusing global and local pheromone updating strategies to improve the algorithm's convergence speed. Levy flights are also introduced to improve the tuning of pheromone evaporation coefficients to enhance the algorithm's ability to evade local optimal solutions. While the paper is generally well-written and free from obvious technical errors, there are a few questions that should be addressed before proceeding with further review.
1. The paper contains some writing errors, such as “{ ts_j }^h” in equation (11) is not found in the parameter table. As well as statements such as line 406 the space between words does, the statement is not coherent. If there are any errors in the expression here, please check carefully.
2. The sigmoid function introduced by the author in line 369 is vaguely explained in terms of its meaning, so please clarify it.
3. In the formula (17) and (18), The symbol description is unclear, as the authors have not provided an explanation for the meaning of “\rho”.
4. In Figure 4, can you explain the process of this flowchart?
5. Some future directions can be discussed in the conclusion part.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Generally, the manuscript is well organized. However, minor grammar and syntax issues need correction to enhance readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have read your text carefully, and at the beginning, I wish to congratulate you on your interesting research. I have no doubts that your manuscript should be published; however, before it happens, I recommend some minor improvements.
- please write your names without repeating 'and'; what is more, I was unable to localize your affiliations except for one author;
- please provide thorough proofreading of your text, paying attention, especially to spelling (for example, in line 32); please note that 'to adopt' means something different than 'to adapt' (line 35);
- Line 93: according to the journal standards, the references should be given in the growing order; therefore, please consult lines 15 vs. 93, line 110, and so on with the editor;
- line 179: a doubled question mark is noticed;
- Figure 3 is hard to read; please consider enlarging the demonstrated elements;
- Figure 6: in each surveying task, standard deviations are expressed an +/-. It means the probability of its appearance is the same for positive and negative values. Regarding that, please verify whether the example demonstrated in the graph reflects your assumptions (currently, only positive values are presented);
- Section 5 'Conclusions': in its current form, the passage is practically the same as an abstract. I think it should underline your research and present a compelling tagline, giving an overview of the future activity. It should also answer how much the research influences the current state of the art. Is your assumed goal achieved? If yes, how much? What will be the future track of using it? What added value does it bring to the science?
I cannot wait for the improved version of your manuscript, and I wish you good luck!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language used in the manuscript is correct and understandable. Only some minor spelling errors are noticed. Regarding that, I recommend providing a thorough proofreading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presented is interesting and deals with an important problem of mission planning in staring and scanning modes. I have some recommendations and questions to the authors.
1) I think, that the word "ex-pedenture" should be corrected ("expedenture", Line 69).
2) The quality of Fig.1 should be better. This Figure is not clear enough.
3) I do not understand the results of a clustering procedure shown in Fig.2. Clarify, please, more accurately what is depicted in that Figure.
4) Describe, please, with some more details two cases of the attitude transfer time calculation as shown in Fig. 3.
5) How did You determine the weight coefficients eta1 and eta2 in Formula (11)? I think that there should be a link with the ill-posed problems theory or with the linear and convex programming or with both.
6) Fig.4 is sated with small details but the key idea of this sceme is not apparent to the reader, in my opinion.
7) Fig.5 should be redrawn as it can not be read at all.
8) It can not be gleaned from Fig.6 that the difference between maximum and minimum valuse of the objective function is small. Converesely, we can conclude that the standard deviation is large.
English Language is well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you very much for your resubmission. In my opinion, your corrected text looks more transparent now, so I have no more objections against publishing it. I also appreciate your answers to my comments. I consider all of them sufficient and recommend your text for further processing. Good luck!
