Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented a design of the spaceborne connecting structure for a lightweight space camera. The quality of the presentation is good.

I recommend the  work  can  be  published  in  MPDI provided  the  following points were properly incorporated into the manuscript.

• some paragraphs/tables/statements/equations are not referenced and authors need to provide references for them. Some examples include the majority of equations, table 1, lines 170-171, etc.
• The authors should mention which software they used for FEA.
• Some pictures need better explanation in the caption. For example, different colors in Fig 5. The authors also should include the unit of lambda in Fig 10.

 

Author Response

Point 1: The authors presented a design of the spaceborne connecting structure for a lightweight space camera. The quality of the presentation is good.


 

Response 1: Thank you very much.

 

Point 2: I recommend the work can be published in MPDI provided the following points were properly incorporated into the manuscript.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your advice.

 

Point 3: Some paragraphs/tables/statements/equations are not referenced and authors need to provide references for them. Some examples include the majority of equations, table 1, lines 170-171, etc.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your advice. We have added references to all paragraphs, tables, statements and equations in the text.

 

Point 4: The authors should mention which software they used for FEA.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your advice. We have added the kind of software we used for FEA in section 3.1.

 

Point 5: Some pictures need better explanation in the caption. For example, different colors in Fig 5. The authors also should include the unit of lambda in Fig 10.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your advice. We have added more detailed explanations to Figure 5 and Figure 10 in the caption and text.

 

Finally, thank you very much for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article discusses the design of components to be applied in spacecrafts. In particular, the study examines the support of a space camera. The need to reduce the weight of the support must be combined with maintaining good optical camera acquisition performance. Optimizing the design will be a compromise between the various requirements, often at odds with each other.

The argument is well illustrated and the research is carried out with attention to details. Analysis and results are suitably presented, but the text could be enriched with further elements and descriptions.

The state-of-the-art in the introduction is quite clear, but in several citations the illustration of the publication content is too succinct. A more detailed and large discussion of the cited papers would enrich the state-of-the-art and improve the comprehension of the concepts.

Since a numerical value is presented in the abstract, it is useful to explain how the “lightweight ratio” (on line 23) is calculated; so that the value given in the abstract as a key result can be better understood.

Similarly, in the introduction it would be useful to explain the “lightweight ratio” (line 34) and in particular the meaning and importance of the “lightweight ratio of the connecting structure”, while the other optical parameters are well-known.

Most of the figures are of high quality and clear.

Fig. 5, Fig. 6. should be illustrated in the text with additional descriptions and details.

Fig. 8 reports a very large amount of points, but it is understandable. Consider the possibility of dividing it into two separated plots…

The conclusions must be broadened. It would be useful to write the meaning of LOS in the conclusions. Technical aspects and practical results should be presented with more details and comments. As regards the application of the proposed methodology to other systems, it is necessary to discuss possible extensions or limitations. Future improvements are not mentioned in the conclusions and should be. The meaning, usefulness, scope could be further discussed in the conclusions.

English is good.

Author Response

Point 1: The article discusses the design of components to be applied in spacecrafts. In particular, the study examines the support of a space camera. The need to reduce the weight of the support must be combined with maintaining good optical camera acquisition performance. Optimizing the design will be a compromise between the various requirements, often at odds with each other. 


 

Response 1: Thank you.

 

Point 2: The argument is well illustrated and the research is carried out with attention to details. Analysis and results are suitably presented, but the text could be enriched with further elements and descriptions.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We have added a more detailed description in the text.

 

Point 3: The state-of-the-art in the introduction is quite clear, but in several citations the illustration of the publication content is too succinct. A more detailed and large discussion of the cited papers would enrich the state-of-the-art and improve the comprehension of the concepts.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your advice. We have added a more detailed introduction and discussion of the cited papers.

 

Point 4: Since a numerical value is presented in the abstract, it is useful to explain how the “lightweight ratio” (on line 23) is calculated; so that the value given in the abstract as a key result can be better understood.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your advice. We have added an explanation of the “lightweight ratio” in the text (line 35).

 

Point 5: Similarly, in the introduction it would be useful to explain the “lightweight ratio” (line 34) and in particular the meaning and importance of the “lightweight ratio of the connecting structure”, while the other optical parameters are well-known.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your advice. We have added the explanation and importance of the “lightweight ratio” in the text (line 35).

 

Point 6: Most of the figures are of high quality and clear.

 

Response 6: Thank you very much.

 

Point 7: Fig. 5, Fig. 6. should be illustrated in the text with additional descriptions and details.

 

Response 7: Thank you for your advice. We have added a more detailed description of Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 in Section 3.1.

 

Point 8: Fig. 8 reports a very large amount of points, but it is understandable. Consider the possibility of dividing it into two separated plots…

 

Response 8: Thank you for your advice. Fig.8 contains all the design variables and put them together in one figure to show their changes during the optimization iterations. If divide it in two separated plots, the information shown in the other figure will be somewhat little.

 

Point 9: The conclusions must be broadened. It would be useful to write the meaning of LOS in the conclusions. Technical aspects and practical results should be presented with more details and comments. As regards the application of the proposed methodology to other systems, it is necessary to discuss possible extensions or limitations. Future improvements are not mentioned in the conclusions and should be. The meaning, usefulness, scope could be further discussed in the conclusions.

 

Response 9: Thank you for your advice. We have broadened the conclusions. We have added the meaning of LOS in the conclusions. The technology used and practical results are described with more details and comments. We also add the discussion of the possible application extensions and limitations, as well as future improvements in the conclusions.

 

Point 10: English is good.

 

Response 10: Thank you very much.

 

Finally, thank you very much for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx