Next Article in Journal
Monitoring Changes in the Enhanced Vegetation Index to Inform the Management of Forests
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatiotemporal Changes of Glaciers in the Yigong Zangbo River Basin over the Period of the 1970s to 2023 and Their Driving Factors
Previous Article in Journal
Mapping the Fraction of Vegetation Coverage of Potamogeton crispus L. in a Shallow Lake of Northern China Based on UAV and Satellite Data
Previous Article in Special Issue
North American Circum-Arctic Permafrost Degradation Observation Using Sentinel-1 InSAR Data
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Potential of the Bi-Static SAR Satellite Companion Mission Harmony for Land-Ice Observations

Remote Sens. 2024, 16(16), 2918; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16162918
by Andreas Kääb 1,*, Jérémie Mouginot 2,†, Pau Prats-Iraola 3, Eric Rignot 4, Bernhard Rabus 5, Andreas Benedikter 3, Helmut Rott 6, Thomas Nagler 6, Björn Rommen 7 and Paco Lopez-Dekker 8
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(16), 2918; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16162918
Submission received: 28 June 2024 / Revised: 6 August 2024 / Accepted: 7 August 2024 / Published: 9 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of the Cryosphere (Second Edition))

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an essential paper regarding mission concept and design.  Congratulations on a well composed and written paper.  A few comments:  

Some concepts are mentioned repeatedly.  That is to be expected some, but I got the impression that different parts were written by different authors resulting in redundancy that was not fully reduced when the full paper was compiled.  Fixing this is not critical, but you might look for that yourselves during your final edits.

What happens if Sentinel fails before Harmony launches, or in the five subsequent years?  Will there be a new Sentinel launched to be in formation with Harmony?

Some of the graphics (especially the text) is not legible at printed paper scale.  Is that an antiquated concept?  Some text in the figures is unnecessarily small and illegible without enlargement, and some could be easily fixed.

Minor edits:

Line 45: "...Sentinel-1A is operational after failure... [and "is"]

Line 63: "Our contribution is in part based..." [typical English uses "part" not "parts".]

Line 148: "lowland" not "low-land" unless split between text lines.

Line 191: "and is foreseen" [and "is"]

Line 198: "and often rely on" [remove other excess words]

Line 221: "(as few as 12 days repeat)" ... it is down to 12, not up to 12.

Line 447:  "typically on the order of"  [not "in"]

It was a pleasure to read this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is excellent, except for a few minor word selections, as itemized for the authors.

Author Response

********** REFEREE 1 **********

This is an essential paper regarding mission concept and design.  Congratulations on a well composed and written paper.  A few comments:  

COMMENT 1

Some concepts are mentioned repeatedly.  That is to be expected some, but I got the impression that different parts were written by different authors resulting in redundancy that was not fully reduced when the full paper was compiled.  Fixing this is not critical, but you might look for that yourselves during your final edits.

RESPONSE 2: Thanks for this observation, we removed a number of redundancies.

COMMENT 2

What happens if Sentinel fails before Harmony launches, or in the five subsequent years?  Will there be a new Sentinel launched to be in formation with Harmony?

RESPONSE 2: We added a paragraph at the end of section 2 to explain different scenarios in case of failures within the Sentinel-1 mission.

COMMENT 3

Some of the graphics (especially the text) is not legible at printed paper scale.  Is that an antiquated concept?  Some text in the figures is unnecessarily small and illegible without enlargement, and some could be easily fixed.

RESPONSE 3: We enlarged the font and sizes of all figures.

Minor edits:

Line 45: "...Sentinel-1A is operational after failure... [and "is"]

CORRECTED

Line 63: "Our contribution is in part based..." [typical English uses "part" not "parts".]

CORRECTED

Line 148: "lowland" not "low-land" unless split between text lines.

CORRECTED THROUGHOUT THE MANUSCRIPT

Line 191: "and is foreseen" [and "is"]

CORRECTED

Line 198: "and often rely on" [remove other excess words]

CORRECTED

Line 221: "(as few as 12 days repeat)" ... it is down to 12, not up to 12.

CORRECTED

Line 447:  "typically on the order of"  [not "in"]

CORRECTED

It was a pleasure to read this paper.

THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR REVIEW AND FOR THIS FRIENDLY FEEDBACK!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript title “Potential of the bi-static SAR satellite companion mission Harmony for land-ice observations”,  Andreas Kääb et al. elaborated on the potential of the European Space Agency Earth Explorer 10 to be launched around 2029-2030 for observations of land ice. The "Harmony" bistatic SAR satellite companion mission will provide DEM data, ice flow conditions and 3D deformation information for most land ice and permafrost areas, this will provide new support for mapping and monitoring the properties and changes of the cryosphere. In this article, the authors list and describe Harmony's overall scientific goals and mission concepts for land ice, the characteristics of potential data products (Glacier DEM, Glacier velocities, etc.) and the potential advantages compared with other similar data products are also analyzed and discussed in detail. In general, this article is based on Harmony's mission selection report on the land ice mission section of the detailed introduction and analysis. I am confident that the publication of this article will help our community keep abreast of Harmony Earth Explorer 10's potential contribution to cryosphere monitoring. It is well-written and  fits the style of Remote Sensing. After correcting a few flaws, I suggest publishing as soon as possible.

1. Lines 94-107, the title of this article is about Harmony's land ice mission, so it seems unnecessary to describe on Harmony's mission-key goals for solid earth, ocean, and ocean-atmospheric dynamics.

2. Figure 1 is too brief and insufficiently clear for the reader to obtain valid information. So either delete the image directly or draw a more detailed picture that is easier for the reader to understand.

3. Lines 493 and 541, two figures are titled as Figure 7. It should be wrong. This makes it difficult for readers to understand the content of the paper, which should be thoroughly revised.

Author Response

********** REFEREE 2 **********

In the manuscript title “Potential of the bi-static SAR satellite companion mission Harmony for land-ice observations”,  Andreas Kääb et al. elaborated on the potential of the European Space Agency Earth Explorer 10 to be launched around 2029-2030 for observations of land ice. The "Harmony" bistatic SAR satellite companion mission will provide DEM data, ice flow conditions and 3D deformation information for most land ice and permafrost areas, this will provide new support for mapping and monitoring the properties and changes of the cryosphere. In this article, the authors list and describe Harmony's overall scientific goals and mission concepts for land ice, the characteristics of potential data products (Glacier DEM, Glacier velocities, etc.) and the potential advantages compared with other similar data products are also analyzed and discussed in detail. In general, this article is based on Harmony's mission selection report on the land ice mission section of the detailed introduction and analysis. I am confident that the publication of this article will help our community keep abreast of Harmony Earth Explorer 10's potential contribution to cryosphere monitoring. It is well-written and  fits the style of Remote Sensing. After correcting a few flaws, I suggest publishing as soon as possible.

THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR REVIEW AND POSITIVE FEEDBACK!

COMMENT 1

  1. Lines 94-107, the title of this article is about Harmony's land ice mission, so it seems unnecessary to describe on Harmony's mission-key goals for solid earth, ocean, and ocean-atmospheric dynamics.

RESPONSE 1: We prefer to have some mention of these other goals so that the reader understands that the mission has to make compromises in terms of measurement goals and mission phases. We have now shortened down the part on other mission goals strongly to one short paragraph.

COMMENT 2

  1. Figure 1 is too brief and insufficiently clear for the reader to obtain valid information. So either delete the image directly or draw a more detailed picture that is easier for the reader to understand.

RESPONSE 2: We have now added information to Figure 1. It is meant as a quick-access graphical summary in contrast to the details given in Figure 2 and hope it now better serves this purpose.

COMMENT 3

  1. Lines 493 and 541, two figures are titled as Figure 7. It should be wrong. This makes it difficult for readers to understand the content of the paper, which should be thoroughly revised.

CORRECTED

Back to TopTop