The CanSat Compendium: A Review of Scientific CanSats

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would recommend restructuring a bit the paper: the organization of the ideas requires some further work, to avoid jumping back and forth between review of cansats, then similarities or differences with radiosondes within the cansats in application section, then back to more review, then forth to repeat the idea that are similariries and differences in the Definition section, then back to review of cansats... and the same for Cubesats and Skimsats. In particular Skimsats seems a bit forced to have it included. The story regarding Twigg also appears several times and is repeated.  The authors have left out also another type of picosats (the PoquetCubes), than in size and probably functionalities (1P, 2P in particular) are closer to what can be achieved with a CanSat than the examples of CubeSats (CubeSats can be generally much larger, except for the 1U ones)

I would suggest starting with the definition, describe (but not extensively) and highlight the differences with other types of pico or nano sats, or similar experimental platforms like radiosondes (mention CubeSats, the smaller PocketCubes, radiosondes in balloons or sounding rockets... skimsats), and then focus on the thorough review of cansats. The content is there, maybe a bit of rewriting and reordering is needed.

Besides CanSat competitions, mention other programms like: Rexus/Bexus, Fly your Satellite, CanSat Leadership Training Program (I think this one is mentioned), UNISEC Global efforts...

Other smaller comments:

31 I would say "low-cost nanosatellites, and specially cubesats",  or "low-cost Cubesats or even smaller picosatellites" as picosatellites are by definition smaller than Cubesats

142 would reword "The following section can only provide a brief glimpse into some of the fields of application and CanSat-based research endeavors."

164-172 seem like randomly picked examples. If that is so, I would introduce with something like "To give a few examples..."

section 3.2 is Ok but it is the first point where it stroke me that the authors were jumping a bit between radiosondes and cansats. Restructuring and better linking of sections required

383-384 Repeated from before, this and other parts of the Twigg story. Restructuring would help

398 Some CubeSats are also launched in suborbital flights or balloons, in fact authors mention the second case below. So you cannot always say CubeSats are orbital. I would suggest that the authors also look into Rexus/Bexus campaigns, where CubeSat-like structures (or other shapes like spheres) have been ejected/dropped from sounding rockets or balloons.

432-433 what about now PocketCubes 1P, 2P... more similar now in size and mass to a cansat, in the picosat regime

437 also stratospheric rockets (Rexus campaigns)

467-468 I would not argue that it is internationally recognized, 80 km is also used. I would say most definitions place the delineation in the range between 80-100 km

475-476 ... less than 5 years, "depending on their area to mass ratio." I would add

486 "Thales Alenia Space, an aerospace company in the United Kingdom,"  .... They refer to Thales UK? Thales is originally FR, Alenia is originally IT. The merge has also branches in the UK but it is not an aerospace company int he UK... I would reword to "The UK branch of Thales Alenia Space has proposed..."

495 The part on skimsats is a bit out of the scope of a cansat review? reduce scope. As suggested above, restructuring with only mentioning similar platforms at the start, differences, and then focus on the main topic: the CanSat review

511-524 Again another example of jumping back and forth to HABs throughout the paper

 

 

 

 

 

English is good, a quick last review might be needed, some minor corrections. A few examples below but I have not done an exhaustive review.

57 "microsatellites" (plural) or "a microsatellite"

169 "Indonesia described" (d missing)

249 3.4 Aeronoutics --> Aeronautics

264-265 Not sure about this sentence

297 Start sentences with "Thus,"

471 "vehicles in LEO can still interact with earth’s atmosphere" I would remove "can"

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper offers a large overview on the topic of Can Satellites with some comparison of standard and application with Cube Satellites. The paper is well written and understandable and its structure adequate. The authors introduce the topic starting from the historical origins of Can Sats and, based on a large span of references, they briefly describe the main applications achieved in this domain as well as some future directions. Large part of the manuscript is based on short descriptions that generally do not go deep in technical detail. Anyway, the given information is sufficient for the reader to retrieve the actual detailed source, and this is what we generally expect from a survey work.

Minor revisions: 

Lines 156-160 and 342-346 it is not clear that the paragraphs are referring to respectively referring to [14] and  [26]. Please, rephrase.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper reviews the state of the art in CanSat-based research and education, covering the history of the technology and its main applications. It also elaborates on a technical definition for CanSat and suggests possible future directions for its evolution.

The review appears reasonably clear, comprehensive and well-structured. Given the amount of literature on the topic, aptly reflected in the extensive list of references, the work seems relevant and appropriate to the subject.

After a brief search, I have found a quite germane 2020 review, which may be referenced: 

• A review of the current state of Pico and Nanosatellites: some applications in Latin America and other regions of the world - Jhonatan P. Tovar Soto, Carlos F. Pareja Figueredo, Jonathan S. Vargas Cañón, Luis C. Gutiérrez Martínez

Btw, the class of nanosatellites is never mentioned in the work (only micro- and pico-). 

A merit of this work is the identification of what remains perhaps the main knowledge gap about CanSat, i.e. a working technical definition of the technology.

IMHO, the one proposed is not entirely convincing, as it sounds a bit like an over-generalization. Notwithstanding the reported disagreement in lines 379-381, there is little doubt that the initial concept of a CanSat had to be that of a can-sized/shaped object orbiting Earth, as accounted by lines 95-100, and implied by etymology (btw, couldn't Prof. Twiggs be asked to clarify this specific point?)

Anyway, the CanSat community should of course have the final word on how they want to define and use the technology.

Some more specific comments follow:

• lines 9-10 and and 508-509 seem incoherent
• line 13 implies that a CubeSat may operate outside of the Earth's atmosphere, which is not; in general (e.g. line 259, 351), the authors seem to consider that orbital flights happen out of the atmosphere
• lines 59, 78: expressions like "Klondike ice cream", "beanie baby display" are probably unfamiliar to non-US readers
• line 98: "armature" is probably a typo
• line 105: "12,000 feet" may be also reported to MKS units
• line 284: "earth" is sometimes capitalized; capitalization should be consistent throughout the text
• lines 412-414 and and 424-426 seem incoherent
• figure numbers should be referenced from the text when appropriate

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf