The Design and Validation of a Satellite Camera Vibration Isolation Platform Supported by Multi-Strut Damping Rods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- The abstract should be rewritten. Repetition should be avoided, and procedures should be explained in simple, clear language.
2- There is a typo on line 92; it should be corrected.
3- The phrase "length is not necessarily better" on lines 149 and 150 is unclear. It is recommended that this section be rewritten.
4- The sources and the material properties given in section 2.2 should be provided in the text. The sources of the basic statements that are not cited in other sections should also be provided.
5- On line 321, it is stated that damage will occur. This should be expressed by comparing it with the safe stress values of the materials used.
6- In addition, details such as element type, number of elements, etc., related to finite element analysis are not mentioned. This must be provided.
7- There are no details about the sine vibration test. There is only an unclear photograph.
8- Details such as element type, number of elements, etc., of the FEA, which is also included in the experimental section, should be mentioned.
9-The results on lines 345-347 were not detailed in previous sections.
10- The literature review section is very confusing; relevant information should be listed in order of importance to express the subject matter clearly.11- Furthermore, the numerical and experimental data obtained are very limited, and the results are not explained in detail. A table should be created based on the analyses performed (e.g., regarding the analysis related to the installation angle being 60 degrees).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsZhang et al., present a study on the development of a passive vibration isolation system for satellite cameras during launch. It focuses on a multi-strut (bipod-based) damped isolator using viscoelastic damping rods, with analysis of rod mechanics, bipod configuration (rigid vs. rotational joints), installation angle effects, multi-strut platform design, finite element simulation, and experimental sine vibration testing.
Overall, the topic is relevant to aerospace engineering, particularly for protecting sensitive payloads like optical cameras from launch vibrations. The work combines analytical modeling, parameter studies, design iteration, and validation, which aligns with typical contributions in vibration isolation for space applications. However, the manuscript has significant issues in clarity, mathematical rigor, presentation, and scientific depth that prevent it from meeting professional journal standards in its current form.
1) The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, typos, inconsistent terminology, and incomplete sentences
2) Transfer function (21) has a sign error or incomplete form (negative sign in numerator but typical transmissibility is positive in magnitude plots
3) Section 3.2 (rotational joint) introduces ψ and dynamic mass but lacks clear connection to damping (c term appears but is not fully integrated).
4) Many figures are referenced but not described adequately (e.g., Fig. 3 shows λ variation but axes unclear in text; Fig. 5 has multiple curves without clear legend explanation).
5) Fig. 9, Fig. 11 show curves but lack units or scale clarity in text.
6) Installation angle optimization concludes α=60° is optimal, but rationale is weak (natural frequency "meets requirement" without specifying target values).
7) Experimental validation only shows sine sweep resonance peaks (37–84 Hz) attributed to camera modes, but transmissibility curves are not quantitatively compared (e.g., isolation efficiency above resonance, damping ratio). No random vibration or shock test results.
8) No discussion of mass penalty, thermal stability, or launch lock mechanism (common in such systems).
9) The multi-strut (three bipods) with parameter tuning is incremental rather than groundbreaking.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- All equations and information from sources should be cited. For example, Ansys [1].
2- Boundary conditions etc. related to finite element analysis should be made in the modeling of the entire model.
3- References should be increased.
4- It may be more appropriate to omit the unit instead of the expression '(g/g)' in Table 3. Also, the units written should be included in the text.
5- Furthermore, the numerical and experimental data obtained are very limited, and the results are not explained in detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript can be published now
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
