MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX): An Open-Source Platform for Accessible Space Science Experiments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Referee Report: "MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX): An Open-Source Platform for Accessible Space Science Experiments"

 

Summary

The paper titled "MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX): An Open-Source Platform for Accessible Space Science Experiments" presents the design of the MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX). This kit is intended to democratize access to microgravity research by offering a low-cost, versatile, and open-source platform. The MGX is designed to be used aboard suborbital rocket flights, making it accessible to a wide audience, including high school students, undergraduates, and researchers. 

 

The paper details the hardware and software architecture of the MGX, emphasizing its modular design and capability to support various scientific experiments, particularly in the fields of materials science, fluid dynamics, and biology.

 

Strengths

 

1. Innovative Contribution: The MGX project offers a novel solution to a significant problem in space science education and research—accessibility. By providing a low-cost, open-source platform, the MGX makes microgravity research feasible for a broader audience, which could lead to increased participation in space sciences.

 

2. Comprehensive Design: The paper provides a detailed description of the MGX's hardware and software architecture. The modular design, which separates the electronic processing module from the experiment module, is fine. This approach allows for flexibility and adaptability, making the platform suitable for various experimental needs.

 

3. Technical Rigor: The paper is technically sound, with detailed descriptions of the system's components, including sensors, data acquisition methods, and the integration of machine learning for real-time data analysis. The use of the NVIDIA Jetson Nano platform is a good choice, given its capability to handle complex computational tasks in real-time.

 

4. Educational Impact: The MGX has the potential to make a significant educational impact by engaging students and educators in space science experiments. The open-source nature of the project also promotes collaboration and knowledge sharing within the academic community.

 

Weaknesses and requests 

 

1. Scope of Experiments: While the MGX is designed to be versatile, the paper could benefit from a more detailed discussion on the limitations of the platform. For instance, the types of experiments that can be realistically conducted with the MGX are somewhat constrained by the platform's capabilities and the microgravity environment's limitations. In addition there is no discussion at all about the use of MGX onboard the ISS. 

Actions: please describe why MGX cannot be used on ISS

Actions: Sect. 3 focuses on sounding rockets. Is this the only use case of MGX. If yes, please state it. If no, please move the beginning of Sect. 3 and merge it with Sect 2.4

 

2. Action: Line 260: please provide a description of the methodology described in Silva and Perondi [27] 

 

3. Testing and Validation: The paper lacks comprehensive data on the testing and validation of the MGX in actual suborbital flights. While the design and theoretical underpinnings are solid, real-world performance data would significantly strengthen the paper's claims about the MGX's capabilities.

Action: is this paper only focused on phases from 0 to C (Table 1)? If yes, please state this clearly in the title of the paper, on the abstract and during the paper. This is very important

 

4. Action: Line 297-304 and Table 2. There is some confusion on classifications H, M, PF, and DT. All experiments are for M. M can be generated with PF, DT, but also with sounding rockets and other methods What is H? Please clarify

Action: if MGX is for sounding rockers, why you are studying also PF and DT?

 

5. Line 320 -> standard 29148 -> standard IEEE 29148

 

6. REQ 5  is too generic

 

7. REQ 62 and 63 are duplicated. re-check all requirements

 

8. REQ 34 is too generic

 

9. REQ 35 and 46: please specify the range. I do not think that there are no limits for the MGX module

 

10. REQ 59 is not a requirements for MGX

 

11. REQ 54 and 55, please specify in advance what is HPC. REQ 55 is not a requirement of MGX

 

12. Line 342: REQ 57 does not specify what is stated, i.e. that MGX divided into two distinct parts

 

13. A connection with a GPS board is not foreseen. GPS should be provided as a standard module, and not left to the developers of the experimental module

 

14. Figure 9 and requirements. It is not clear if and where the power supply is provided to the experimental module

 

15. It is not clear if the NVIDIA Jetson Nano platform fulfil the requirements 24-28

 

16. User Accessibility: Although the MGX is intended to be accessible to a wide audience, the paper does not thoroughly address the potential technical challenges that users, especially high school students, might face when working with the platform. Providing more guidance or support materials for less experienced users could enhance the platform's accessibility.

 

17 Market Competition: The paper does not sufficiently discuss how the MGX compares to existing solutions. A brief competitive analysis could help to better position the MGX within the broader context of space research tools.

 

18. One of the most important comments is to publish this work without any flight test on hardware. Are there some plans to qualify the proposed solution?

 

19. The software is publicly available, but what about the schematic of the hardware configuration, to allow other researchers to reproduce and print the electronic boards?

 

20. Add clearer discussion about the limitations of MGX hw/sw platform

 

Conclusions

The paper presents a well-conceived and potentially impactful project that addresses a critical barrier in space science research—accessibility. The MGX's design is innovative and technically sound, with the potential to significantly enhance STEM education and democratize access to microgravity experiments. However, the paper would benefit from additional data on real-world testing, a clearer discussion of the platform's limitations, and strategies to ensure that less experienced users can effectively utilize the MGX. Overall, the MGX is a promising tool with the potential to contribute to both education and research in space sciences. 

 

Further development and testing are recommended to fully realize the platform's potential and address the identified weaknesses. State some words about the planning of these tests.

 

Author Response

Summary

The paper titled "MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX): An Open-Source Platform for Accessible Space Science Experiments" presents the design of the MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX). This kit is intended to democratize access to microgravity research by offering a low-cost, versatile, and open-source platform. The MGX is designed to be used aboard suborbital rocket flights, making it accessible to a wide audience, including high school students, undergraduates, and researchers. 

The paper details the hardware and software architecture of the MGX, emphasizing its modular design and capability to support various scientific experiments, particularly in the fields of materials science, fluid dynamics, and biology.

 We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

Strengths

1. Innovative Contribution: The MGX project offers a novel solution to a significant problem in space science education and research—accessibility. By providing a low-cost, open-source platform, the MGX makes microgravity research feasible for a broader audience, which could lead to increased participation in space sciences.

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

2. Comprehensive Design: The paper provides a detailed description of the MGX's hardware and software architecture. The modular design, which separates the electronic processing module from the experiment module, is fine. This approach allows for flexibility and adaptability, making the platform suitable for various experimental needs.

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

3. Technical Rigor: The paper is technically sound, with detailed descriptions of the system's components, including sensors, data acquisition methods, and the integration of machine learning for real-time data analysis. The use of the NVIDIA Jetson Nano platform is a good choice, given its capability to handle complex computational tasks in real-time.

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

4. Educational Impact: The MGX has the potential to make a significant educational impact by engaging students and educators in space science experiments. The open-source nature of the project also promotes collaboration and knowledge sharing within the academic community.

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

 

Weaknesses and requests 

1. Scope of Experiments: While the MGX is designed to be versatile, the paper could benefit from a more detailed discussion on the limitations of the platform. For instance, the types of experiments that can be realistically conducted with the MGX are somewhat constrained by the platform's capabilities and the microgravity environment's limitations. In addition there is no discussion at all about the use of MGX onboard the ISS. 

Actions: please describe why MGX cannot be used on ISS

The set of requirements to fly an experiment aboard ISS is quite restrictive since it has to be assured that the experiment will not risk the astronauts´ lives and the ISS infrastructure.  Among the risks to be dealt with, the following can be mentioned: fire, outgassing, contamination, etc. Therefore, the proposed device is to be used aboard unmanned spacecraft.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210009936/downloads/SSP%2051721-Baseline.pdf

Actions: Sect. 3 focuses on sounding rockets. Is this the only use case of MGX. If yes, please state it. If no, please move the beginning of Sect. 3 and merge it with Sect 2.4

We have changed the text of the manuscript to make it clear that the MGX is being designed to be housed in sounding rockets

2. Action: Line 260: please provide a description of the methodology described in Silva and Perondi [27] 

The description was inserted as requested.

3. Testing and Validation: The paper lacks comprehensive data on the testing and validation of the MGX in actual suborbital flights. While the design and theoretical underpinnings are solid, real-world performance data would significantly strengthen the paper's claims about the MGX's capabilities.

Action: is this paper only focused on phases from 0 to C (Table 1)? If yes, please state this clearly in the title of the paper, on the abstract and during the paper. This is very important

Before flying, MGX, a set of validation procedures will have to be put in place, including vibration, shock, thermal and vacuum.  Some of the tests are expected to be performed at the space facilities available to support this type of research in Brazil.

After completing the development testing of the MGX engineering model, the project will enter Phase D, which, according to de Silva and Perondi’s (2021) project life cycle, involves the qualification and production phase. At this stage, we expect to secure a grant to prepare the MGX for flight, select experiments, and conduct them during a microgravity mission with a sounding rocket.

4. Action: Line 297-304 and Table 2. There is some confusion on classifications H, M, PF, and DT. All experiments are for M. M can be generated with PF, DT, but also with sounding rockets and other methods What is H? Please clarify

Action: if MGX is for sounding rockers, why you are studying also PF and DT?

The text may be misleading and it was changed to clarify this matter, as follows: PF, DT were mentioned with the purpose of letting the reader know, there are other ways to reach microgravity.  

5. Line 320 -> standard 29148 -> standard IEEE 29148

Comment accepted and adjustment carried out.

6. REQ 5  is too generic

Comment accepted and adjustment carried out – Requirement 5 is a broad generic requirement, and REQ-6, REQ-9, and REQ-12 complement the REQ-5. This choice aims to keep the requirements as simple as possible and respect the requirements' characteristics to be tested. The engineering choices are to divide the requirements into small texts.

7. REQ 62 and 63 are duplicated. re-check all requirements

Comment accepted and adjustment carried out.

8. REQ 34 is too generic

Comment accepted and adjustment carried out – Respecting the requirement's intrinsic characteristic of expressing what should be done and not how it should be done, the requirement leaves the developer to choose the best isolation method. Thus, this requirement is intentionally broader. Moreover, the developer can choose among various IC and isolation types.

9. REQ 35 and 46: please specify the range. I do not think that there are no limits for the MGX module

Comment accepted and adjustment carried out - Respecting the requirement's intrinsic characteristic of expressing what should be done and not how it should be done, the requirement leaves the developer to choose the best ADC IC and, consequently,the method of access. The same philosophy applies to REQ-35; the baud rates are expressed in REQ-36. However, how these baud-rates are configured along with other UART configurations are intentionally not detailed to let the developed free of express how. The requirement just expresses what should be done.

10. REQ 59 is not a requirements for MGX

Comment accepted and adjustment carried out – The REQ-59 is based on the intrinsic characteristic of requirements of being verifiable. Thus, ensuring that the experiment box dimensions fit into the rocket payload guarantees the mission’s success. Furthermore, the REQ-59 is a compliment of the REQ-58.

11. REQ 54 and 55, please specify in advance what is HPC. REQ 55 is not a requirement of MGX

Comment accepted and adjustment carried out – The REQ-55 was changed to reflect non-mandatory provisions.

12. Line 342: REQ 57 does not specify what is stated, i.e. that MGX divided into two distinct parts

Comment accepted and adjustment carried out

13. A connection with a GPS board is not foreseen. GPS should be provided as a standard module, and not left to the developers of the experimental module

We thank the reviewer for this comment, in the design revisions, it was decided to remove the GPS from the MGX because it is already present in the service module of the suborbital platforms.

14. Figure 9 and requirements. It is not clear if and where the power supply is provided to the experimental module

Comment accepted and adjustment carried out. – The three specific voltages are delivered by a DB9 connector to the experimental module. These three voltages are selected because most commercial ICs use these voltages to power up and work correctly. Thus, addressing a huge variety of ICs that can be used in the experimental module.

15. It is not clear if the NVIDIA Jetson Nano platform fulfil the requirements 24-28

We thank the reviewer for this comment, which made us realize that more explanation of this item was needed in the text of the manuscript. – The requirement 24 deals specifically with sensors, and to keep a low budget, the requirement specifies the Industrial temperature range as minimal −40 °C to 85 °C (−40 to 185 °F). Thus, for example, an automotive grade is available and needed to extend the temperature range. Such a change does not violate the sensor temperature requirement.

16. User Accessibility: Although the MGX is intended to be accessible to a wide audience, the paper does not thoroughly address the potential technical challenges that users, especially high school students, might face when working with the platform. Providing more guidance or support materials for less experienced users could enhance the platform's accessibility.

In order to address this problem, the Brazilian Space Agency, possesses a program called Microgravity, which through an Opportunity Public Announcement choose projects to fly on Brazilian sounding rockets (https://www.gov.br/aeb/pt-br/pagina-inicial-1/noticias/programa-microgravidade-divulga-novo-anuncio-de-oportunidades-1).  In addition to financial resources, the recipients are offered technical support by specialists from the Institute of Aeronautics and Space.   That was the case, for example, of the experiment shown on Figure 1.

17 Market Competition: The paper does not sufficiently discuss how the MGX compares to existing solutions. A brief competitive analysis could help to better position the MGX within the broader context of space research tools.

Our study did not find any device capable of offering a similar interface.

18. One of the most important comments is to publish this work without any flight test on hardware. Are there some plans to qualify the proposed solution?

As soon as MGX is qualified on the ground and the Brazilian Space Agency publishes the OA (Opportunity Announcement), it will fly on board VSB-30.

19. The software is publicly available, but what about the schematic of the hardware configuration, to allow other researchers to reproduce and print the electronic boards?

We thank the reviewer for this comment, we have prepared an Interface Control Document (ICD) to be included in the MGX online repository link. This ICD provides comprehensive hardware details, schematics, and pin assignment for the MGX component connections, offering users a detailed interface to facilitate the system's reproduction.

20. Add clearer discussion about the limitations of MGX hw/sw platform

The limitations depend on the suborbital vehicle's volume, mechanical and thermal loads, power, and bandwidth.  

Conclusions

The paper presents a well-conceived and potentially impactful project that addresses a critical barrier in space science research—accessibility. The MGX's design is innovative and technically sound, with the potential to significantly enhance STEM education and democratize access to microgravity experiments. However, the paper would benefit from additional data on real-world testing, a clearer discussion of the platform's limitations, and strategies to ensure that less experienced users can effectively utilize the MGX. Overall, the MGX is a promising tool with the potential to contribute to both education and research in space sciences. 

Further development and testing are recommended to fully realize the platform's potential and address the identified weaknesses. State some words about the planning of these tests.

As mentioned before, MGX has not been qualified for flight yet, but it is expected to be in the following years.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled "MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX): An Open-Source Platform for Accessible Space Science Experiments" presents a compelling and innovative solution to a longstanding challenge in space science research—the accessibility of microgravity experiments. By introducing the MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX), an open-source platform designed to democratize access to microgravity research, the authors make a significant contribution to the field, potentially expanding participation in space sciences to a much broader audience.

I find this manuscript to be of high quality, both in terms of its technical content and its potential impact on the field. The design and development of the MGX, along with its open-source nature, align well with contemporary trends in science and education, where open access and collaborative efforts are increasingly emphasized. The manuscript is well-structured, clearly written, and effectively communicates the value and potential of the MGX platform.

I recommend the publication of this article in "Aerospace," as it meets the journal's standards of innovation, technical rigor, and relevance to the field.

Strengths of the Manuscript:

1. Innovation and Relevance: The development of the MGX as an accessible and multifunctional platform for microgravity experiments is a novel approach that addresses a significant barrier in space sciences. By making this platform open-source, the authors ensure that the tool can be adapted, modified, and utilized by a wide range of users, from high school students to professional researchers. This democratization of space science is not only innovative but also timely, given the increasing interest in STEM education and the growing accessibility of space exploration technologies.

2. Technical Robustness: The manuscript demonstrates thorough technical development, including a comprehensive literature review, detailed design specifications, and practical examples of the MGX's capabilities. The use of a Jetson Nano computer, coupled with an array of sensors and cameras, provides a robust and versatile platform capable of supporting a wide variety of experiments. The inclusion of data acquisition and processing capabilities, including the ability to run machine learning algorithms, highlights the platform's adaptability and potential for advanced research.

3. Educational Impact: The MGX's design as a cost-effective and accessible tool has the potential to significantly enhance education in space sciences. By lowering the financial and technical barriers to conducting microgravity experiments, the MGX can inspire and equip the next generation of scientists and engineers, fostering innovation and discovery from an early stage in education.

4. Clear Presentation: The authors have successfully communicated the complex technical aspects of the MGX in a manner that is accessible to a broad audience. The manuscript is well-organized, with a logical flow from the background and motivation through to the design, implementation, and potential applications of the MGX. The use of examples and detailed descriptions further enhances the clarity and comprehensibility of the content.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1. Expanded Discussion on Potential Applications: While the manuscript touches upon the potential applications of the MGX in fields such as materials science, fluid dynamics, and biology, a more detailed exploration of specific case studies or examples could further strengthen the paper. Providing hypothetical or real-world scenarios where the MGX could be utilized would illustrate its practical relevance and inspire potential users.

2. User Feedback and Validation: Including preliminary feedback or results from initial users of the MGX, such as educational institutions or research groups, could provide valuable insights into its usability and effectiveness. This would also demonstrate the platform's impact and its potential to meet the needs of diverse user groups.

3. Future Work and Development: A section outlining potential future enhancements or extensions of the MGX platform would be beneficial. This could include suggestions for additional sensors, software updates, or integration with other educational or research tools. Discussing the long-term vision for the MGX would add depth to the paper and encourage further development and collaboration.

Conclusion:

The "MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX)" is a significant advancement in making space science more accessible and engaging. The manuscript is well-written, technically sound, and presents a platform with the potential to inspire a new wave of innovation in microgravity research. I believe this article will be of great interest to the readers of "Aerospace," and I recommend it for publication with minor revisions as suggested above.

 

Author Response

The article titled "MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX): An Open-Source Platform for Accessible Space Science Experiments" presents a compelling and innovative solution to a longstanding challenge in space science research—the accessibility of microgravity experiments. By introducing the MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX), an open-source platform designed to democratize access to microgravity research, the authors make a significant contribution to the field, potentially expanding participation in space sciences to a much broader audience.

I find this manuscript to be of high quality, both in terms of its technical content and its potential impact on the field. The design and development of the MGX, along with its open-source nature, align well with contemporary trends in science and education, where open access and collaborative efforts are increasingly emphasized. The manuscript is well-structured, clearly written, and effectively communicates the value and potential of the MGX platform.

I recommend the publication of this article in "Aerospace," as it meets the journal's standards of innovation, technical rigor, and relevance to the field.

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment and for the kind words.

Strengths of the Manuscript:

1) Innovation and Relevance: The development of the MGX as an accessible and multifunctional platform for microgravity experiments is a novel approach that addresses a significant barrier in space sciences. By making this platform open-source, the authors ensure that the tool can be adapted, modified, and utilized by a wide range of users, from high school students to professional researchers. This democratization of space science is not only innovative but also timely, given the increasing interest in STEM education and the growing accessibility of space exploration technologies. 

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

2) Technical Robustness: The manuscript demonstrates thorough technical development, including a comprehensive literature review, detailed design specifications, and practical examples of the MGX's capabilities. The use of a Jetson Nano computer, coupled with an array of sensors and cameras, provides a robust and versatile platform capable of supporting a wide variety of experiments. The inclusion of data acquisition and processing capabilities, including the ability to run machine learning algorithms, highlights the platform's adaptability and potential for advanced research.  

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

3) Educational Impact: The MGX's design as a cost-effective and accessible tool has the potential to significantly enhance education in space sciences. By lowering the financial and technical barriers to conducting microgravity experiments, the MGX can inspire and equip the next generation of scientists and engineers, fostering innovation and discovery from an early stage in education.

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

4) Clear Presentation: The authors have successfully communicated the complex technical aspects of the MGX in a manner that is accessible to a broad audience. The manuscript is well-organized, with a logical flow from the background and motivation through to the design, implementation, and potential applications of the MGX. The use of examples and detailed descriptions further enhances the clarity and comprehensibility of the content.

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1) Expanded Discussion on Potential Applications: While the manuscript touches upon the potential applications of the MGX in fields such as materials science, fluid dynamics, and biology, a more detailed exploration of specific case studies or examples could further strengthen the paper. Providing hypothetical or real-world scenarios where the MGX could be utilized would illustrate its practical relevance and inspire potential users.

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion and have updated the text to include more potential applications for MGX. Section 4.5 provides a detailed example of a real-world application, with additional examples in Table 2. The design of the device was informed by both a review of the relevant literature and the authors' experience with various experiments conducted aboard Brazilian sounding rockets.

2) User Feedback and Validation: Including preliminary feedback or results from initial users of the MGX, such as educational institutions or research groups, could provide valuable insights into its usability and effectiveness. This would also demonstrate the platform's impact and its potential to meet the needs of diverse user groups.

At this point, MGX has not yet been qualified in flight, but we are planning to do so soon. Nonetheless, it was designed to meet the requirements and needs of several experiments that have flown over the past 10 years aboard sounding rockets, including some in which the authors were involved or collaborated with scientists who developed these experiments. We are hopeful that, soon, the MGX concept will be actively supporting the development of university-level experiments.

3) Future Work and Development: A section outlining potential future enhancements or extensions of the MGX platform would be beneficial. This could include suggestions for additional sensors, software updates, or integration with other educational or research tools. Discussing the long-term vision for the MGX would add depth to the paper and encourage further development and collaboration.

As mentioned before, MGX has been designed based upon not only previous experience in flying experiments aboard suborbital vehicles, but alsoon implementing new hardware and software trends.For future versions, we plan to develop a reduced version of MGX that could be used in CubeSats. We have mentioned this possibility in the discussion of future work for a new version of MGX.

Conclusion:

The "MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX)" is a significant advancement in making space science more accessible and engaging. The manuscript is well-written, technically sound, and presents a platform with the potential to inspire a new wave of innovation in microgravity research. I believe this article will be of great interest to the readers of "Aerospace," and I recommend it for publication with minor revisions as suggested above.

We thank the reviewer for the favorable general comment.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the design of a multifunctional platform for microgravity experiments onboard suborbital rocket. The platform is supposed to be equipped with several optical systems and is aimed to simplify the access to space. After a literature review on microgravity experiments carried out to ensure the versatility of the tool across different scenarios such physics of fluids, heat and mass transfer, biology and so on, a list of requirements is provided, and a possible facility architecture designed. Several well-known microgravity methods, including orbital flight, sounding rocket, parabolic flight, and drop tower are analyzed and a standard Project Life cycle is adopted for the design the multipurpose facility able to fit some of the proposed requirements considering sounding rockets as facility is described.

In my opinion the paper seems more a technical report on sounding rocket experiments rather than a scientific paper and do not add any valuable contribution at the hard work of the microgravity science community.  For these reason in my opinion the paper cannot be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of english language is good. 

Author Response

The paper deals with the design of a multifunctional platform for microgravity experiments onboard suborbital rocket. The platform is supposed to be equipped with several optical systems and is aimed to simplify the access to space. After a literature review on microgravity experiments carried out to ensure the versatility of the tool across different scenarios such physics of fluids, heat and mass transfer, biology and so on, a list of requirements is provided, and a possible facility architecture designed. Several well-known microgravity methods, including orbital flight, sounding rocket, parabolic flight, and drop tower are analyzed and a standard Project Life cycle is adopted for the design the multipurpose facility able to fit some of the proposed requirements considering sounding rockets as facility is described. 
In my opinion the paper seems more a technical report on sounding rocket experiments rather than a scientific paper and do not add any valuable contribution at the hard work of the microgravity science community.  For these reason in my opinion the paper cannot be published.

We appreciate the reviewer's perspective and understand the concerns raised. However, the primary objective of this work was to make microgravity experiments more accessible to a broader community. Our previous experience has shown that many potential experimenters shy away from microgravity research due to the complexities associated with the necessary hardware and software. In response, we have developed a technological solution aimed at alleviating these challenges, thus contributing to the advancement of microgravity research.
Furthermore, our platform offers the capability to run real-time machine learning algorithms for tasks such as pattern recognition and decision-making, which we believe adds significant value to the field. We respectfully ask that the reviewer point us to any existing literature that addresses a similar approach, as we have not encountered such examples in our review.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your answer.

The only open point is to focus better that this is a paper about the design of MGX. My suggestion is to change the title of the paper, from "MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX): An Open-Source Platform for Accessible Space Science Experiments" to "Design of the MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX): An Open-Source Platform for Accessible Space Science Experiments" or similar.

In addition, please expand the conclusion by adding the future plans (e.g. when maybe this platform will be implemented) described by the authors answering my comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised paper the authors have included additional information on their work but in my opinion the proposed MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX) dose not give any access to space, which is supposed to be the aim of this work. The paper, simply, describe the hardware designed and utilized for an experiment on board a sounding rocket for medical applications. I appreciate the fact that the software is available on the web but of course this is not enough to claim that there is an opens source platform to access to space; for this reason, with regret, I recommend for not publication. Below some comments:

Title: “MicroGravity Explorer Kit (MGX): An Open-Source Platform for Accessible Space Science Experiments”. Usually Open-Source means something that is available free of charge. Please could you clarify what does mean Open-Source Platform in your work. Are the platform or the sounding rocket experiment including hardware likes camera and so on, available?

Abstract and Introduction:

“The MGX aims to democratize access to microgravity research, making it accessible to high school students, undergraduates, and researchers.” In my opinion this is not possible at all. The MicroGravity Explorer Kit’s does not give any access to microgravity research because do not include the possibility to fly in a sounding rocket.

2. The Microgravity Environment

Where is the novelty in this section? All the microgravity platforms described in this section are old. The new platform proposed for microgravity experiments like Axiom station, Starlab Space Station are not considered at all.

4.5. Software Implementation and functionality

In this section a list of potential applications of machine learning algorithm likes Image segmentation, tracking movements of particles and cells, pattern recognition in image data and so on, is given, but there is no evidence about the capability of the MGX kit.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English Language is good. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments