Adaptive Learning Gain-Based Robust Attitude Control for Satellites with Time-Varying External Disturbances

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper considers an adaptive learning gain based robust attitude control for satellites. The comments are as follows.

1. The statement of "The effectiveness of ... in MATLAB/Simulink." is not the contribution that can be removed.
2. What is the difference of the proposed ALG-based control compared to the existing ones?
3. The proposed learning algorithm (18) is in fact an adaptive law? If it is, remove the statement of "learning".
4. In simulation, other similar methods should be compared for demonstrating the proposed control.
5. The investigation is a little not sufficient. Comment a review 10.1016/j.jai.2025.06.001 is useful for improving the literature discussion quality.

Overall, the authors should carefully consider the comments and the paper is encouraged to be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attached file for our detailed responses.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback and thoughtful suggestions. A comprehensive, point-by-point reply addressing each comment has been provided in the attached PDF document. We have carefully revised the manuscript to reflect the reviewer’s input, and all changes have been clearly marked in red font in the revised version for ease of review. We believe these revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity and overall quality of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Compared to the existing self-learning gain mechanism-based control results, what are the differences and advantages of this study?

2) Assumption 2 seems a little strong, which needs to assume the upper and lower bounds of the feedback gains exist. Is it reasonable in practice?

3) In (18), why to choose such gain adaption law? Please provide some explanations. In addition, how to choose the proper magnitude of the desired bound, in real applications?

4) In the simulation section, how to select the controller parameters to achieve the better control performance?

5)For Figs.5~7, some tracking error curves can result in the chattering phenomenon in practice. How to avoid it?

6) Also, at the end of the introduction section, the second contribution means that the developed controller can ensure the tracking errors remain within prescribed performance bound. Compared to the existing prescribed performance control results such as neural adaptive dynamic surface asymptotic tracking control of hydraulic manipulators with guaranteed transient performance, command filtered adaptive tracking control of nonlinear systems with prescribed performance under time‐variant parameters and input delay, and adaptive motion control for electro-hydraulic servo systems with appointed-time performance, what are the differences and advantages of this study?

Author Response

Please see the attached file for our detailed responses.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback and thoughtful suggestions. A comprehensive, point-by-point reply addressing each comment has been provided in the attached PDF document. We have carefully revised the manuscript to reflect the reviewer’s input, and all changes have been clearly marked in red font in the revised version for ease of review. We believe these revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity and overall quality of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following points are suggested for further revision of the manuscript:

1. Section 2 needs a more detailed introduction of the types of satellites and their control characteristics, including modeling, characteristics, and parameters.

2. Figure 1 should clearly indicate the direction of motion, show how the model was built using MATLAB/Simulink's Multibody toolbox, and include the dimensions of the satellite. The complete simulation block diagram used to build the model should also be fully presented.

3. Figure 3 shows that each cycle lasts about 30 seconds. More explanation is needed regarding how the commands were selected and the differences between the two types.

4. All results should be summarized in tables with both qualitative and quantitative analysis to facilitate further review.

5. The references are too outdated, as all sources are more than four years old.

6. The introduction section lacks specific discussion, as there is no explanation regarding satellite control and characteristics, nor a clear description of the concrete contributions.

Author Response

Please see the attached file for our detailed responses.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback and thoughtful suggestions. A comprehensive, point-by-point reply addressing each comment has been provided in the attached PDF document. We have carefully revised the manuscript to reflect the reviewer’s input, and all changes have been clearly marked in red font in the revised version for ease of review. We believe these revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity and overall quality of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the authors' response. The paper has been well addressed. A minor comment is that the author list of [16] is not correct. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful feedback and positive evaluation of our revised manuscript.
As pointed out, the author list of Reference [16] was found to be incorrect.
We have now carefully corrected it based on the original source as follows:

[16]. K. Shao, J. Zheng, M. Fu„ “Review on the developments of sliding function and adaptive gain in sliding mode control,” J. Autom. Intell., accepted for publication, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jai.2025.06.001. 

Thank you again for your careful review and helpful suggestions throughout the revision process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no comments.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work.
We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the manuscript.
Your feedback has been greatly encouraging and helpful in improving the quality of the paper.
We are glad that the revised version meets your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The conditions under which Figure 1 was established should be fully described. Simply labeling the three motion directions is insufficient to justify the proposed modeling method.
2. In Figure 2, the satellite control strategy is not clearly illustrated. It is recommended to replace this with a clear mathematical representation of the satellite dynamics to enhance clarity and rigor.
3. The parameter notations used throughout the manuscript are too loosely defined. Please consider adding two tables: one for satellite parameters with corresponding symbols and physical meanings, and another for controller parameters and design conditions.
4. The relationship between Equations (32) and (33) and the implementation in Figure 2 appears unclear. Please verify and clarify this correspondence.
5. References [32] and [33] are mentioned but not discussed or elaborated upon in the manuscript. Their relevance and application should be clearly explained.
6. Many of the cited references are outdated and not directly relevant to the work. A thorough review and reduction of unnecessary citations are necessary to improve the academic quality and relevance of the manuscript.

Author Response

Author's Notes to Reviewer 3

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript.
All responses to your detailed suggestions have been carefully addressed and are included in the attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions have addressed all previous concerns. No further comments.