Development of a Highly Flexible and High-Resolution Deep-Towed Streamer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the article is a presentation of a new deep-towed streamer from technological point of view. Authors present also a one example of measurements obtained by this system.

In reviewer opinion article can be published after revision.

Authors should consider following comments:

1)      It will be interesting if Authors present state of the art of deep-towed streamers in the context of their solution (in INTRODUCTION).

It is important for readers to understand the achievements presented in this article.

2)      Chapter titled measurement data  (better - an example of measurements) should be described more precisely. Please, write about location of measurements and geological conditions.

3)      Probably, Authors use word streamer in  the sense of acoustic module – please explain this. It will be more clear if Authors prepare a sketch with possible geometry of deep-towed streamer. Figure no. 1 does not explain this problem.

4)      It will be interesting if Authors present in SUMMARY advantages and limitations of their deep-towed streamer in points (or in table). Authors should make it in comparison to the other existing technology.

More detailed hints can be found in manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Major comments:

1.     It will be interesting if Authors present state of the art of deep-towed streamers in the context of their solution (in INTRODUCTION). It is important for readers to understand the achievements presented in this article.

Reply

--> We accepted this comment and revised the manuscript as follows.

We added “comparison of the reflection images obtained by new system with surface-towed cable” for make readers interest.

2.     Chapter titled measurement data (better - an example of measurements) should be described more precisely. Please, write about location of measurements and geological conditions.

Reply

--> We accepted this comment and revised the manuscript as follows.

This chapter has been greatly revised. Chapter title has revised as “Test Data” as a comment by Reviewer #2

3.     Probably, Authors use word streamer in the sense of acoustic module – please explain this. It will be moreclear if Authors prepare a sketch with possible geometry of deep-towed streamer. Figure no. 1 does not explain this problem.

Reply

--> We accepted this comment and revised the manuscript as follows.

We have put a new figure as Fig. 2. The figure shows simply to make understanding for readers.

4.      It will be interesting if Authors present in SUMMARY advantages and limitations of their deep-towed streamer in points (or in table). Authors should make it in comparison to the other existing technology.

Reply

--> We accepted this comment and revised the manuscript as follows.

We added “comparison of the reflection images obtained by new system with surface-towed cable” for make readers interest. We think, however, that the contents of advantage and limitations is not so much to make in table.

“More detailed hints can be found in manuscript.”

Reply

--> We have appreciated to detailed comments on the manuscript. We have revised all of the detailed hints.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The key point of this paper, presenting this deep-tow streamer, is important to the marine high-resolution seismic community and absolutely should be published.  However several important questions and comments must be addressed.  These are described within the comments made on the attached pdf.  ( I would have preferred a docx file that I could edit with track changes, but the pdf format works)  Many of the wording suggestions , like using "recorded" instead of "detected" are not a big deal, but the comments regarding whether the seismic data and depth sensor reading are telemetered to the ship-based lab in real time and needing much more description and explanation and an additional figure for the data example are essential.  I am recommending accept after minor revision, but really the revision needed is more than minor but not to the point where I would recommend reconsider after major revision.  My review is a bit rushed and isn't polished as it could be but should be helpful to the authors and editor.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply

--> We have appreciated to detailed comments on the manuscript. We basically accepted reviewer’s comment and major revised the manuscript as follows.

Point 1. We have put a new figure as Fig. 2. The figure shows about the sound source is deploy near the sea-surface. We want to developments on sound source to deploy to deep-towed “in the future”.

Point 2. The new cable system is much flexible and we can deploy the system both on-line and off-line. We have revised manuscript as follow:

In a case using the deep-towed frame an off-line system, depth data stored only in the depth sensor. In our system to use a 2400 DT-2 (EdgeTech, West Wareham, MA, USA) is adopted for the deep-towed frame. The deep-towed frame comprises a battery module, a data control module, a fiber optic multiplexer and other instruments such as side scan sonar, including, for example, a position and depth sensor which readings telemetered to the ship in real time.

Point 3. We added “comparison of the reflection images obtained by new system with surface-towed cable” for make readers interest.

Other: --> We have appreciated to detailed comments on the manuscript. We have revised all of the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx