Toward Integrated Satellite Operations and Network Management: A Review and Novel Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The reference to “three novel architectures” in the abstract needs to be described more clearly in terms of their specifics and differences so that the reader can better understand their innovative nature.  As well, the abstract mentions “evaluated against a set of challenges” but does not specify what those challenges are, so it is recommended that a brief description of the key challenges be added.
2. The description of the “New Space era” in the introduction is rather brief, and it is suggested that more specific impacts and examples of this trend be added to enhance the richness of the context.  The 6G vision mentions “seamless interworking”, but does not specify how to realize such seamless collaboration, so it is recommended to add technical details or paths for realization.
3. The categorization of existing studies (e.g., “sporadic connectivity” and “persistent connectivity”) in the Literature Review is relatively clear, but lacks an in-depth analysis of the shortcomings of related studies. However, there is a lack of in-depth analysis of the shortcomings of related studies, and it is suggested to add a discussion of the limitations of existing studies.  
4. The data sources and statistical methods in Tables 1 and 2 are not clearly stated, and it is suggested that the specific methods of data collection and analysis be added.
5. Although the proposed CMS framework has a clear structure, it lacks specific algorithms or technical details, such as the specific implementation of the scheduling engine, and it is suggested to add more technical details. The module interaction description in Figure 1 is rather brief, and it is suggested to add a detailed description of the functions of each module, especially the specific roles of “Plan Executor” and “Scheduler”.
6. The outlook for future work in the conclusion is rather brief, and it is recommended that more specific directions for further research or potential improvements be proposed. The limitations of the framework are not mentioned in the conclusion, and it is recommended that a discussion of the shortcomings of the current research be added. 8.
7. Some terms (e.g., “NetOps” and “SatOps”) are not clearly defined when they first appear, and it is recommended that a glossary of terms be added in the introduction or related chapters.  
8. Some diagrams (e.g., Figures 4 and 6) are not clearly labeled, and it is suggested to optimize the labeling and description of the diagrams.
9. The citation format of some references is not uniform (some contain DOI, some do not), it is recommended to check and standardize the format. It is recommended to check and standardize the format. And the research in the last three years accounts for a relatively low percentage, it is recommended to add more recent research results to reflect the timeliness of the research. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary
This paper presents a comprehensive review of satellite operations and network management integration challenges, proposing the Constellation Management System (CMS) as a unified framework. The main contributions include: (1) systematic characterization of operational gaps between satellite and network domains, (2) the CMS framework design with modular architecture, (3) three operational architectures (integrated, coordinated, adaptive) for different connectivity scenarios, and (4) qualitative evaluation mapping framework features to identified challenges.

Technical Review Strengths

• Comprehensive literature review identifying 23 specific challenges across multiple categories
• Well-designed modular framework addressing real integration needs
• Clear architectural designs for different operational scenarios
• Strong mapping between challenges and proposed solutions
• Timely contribution to 6G standardization efforts

Technical Review Weaknesses

• Lack of quantitative validation or performance metrics
• Limited discussion of scalability concerns for large constellations
• Security considerations not adequately addressed
• Implementation complexity and computational requirements not analyzed
• Missing comparison with existing commercial solutions

Assessment Criteria Ratings

• Scientific rigor and methodology: Systematic approach but lacks empirical validation
• Novelty and innovation: Novel integrated framework bridging two domains
• Technical implementation quality: Conceptual design is solid but implementation details limited
• Practical applicability: Addresses real industry needs with prototype planned
• Presentation and clarity: Exceptionally well-organized and clearly written

Detailed Assessment

• Significance and Novelty: The paper addresses a critical gap in satellite-terrestrial network integration for 6G. The CMS framework's ability to unify traditionally separate operational domains is novel and significant.
• Relevance to Technologies Journal: Highly relevant, combining network technologies, satellite systems, and operational frameworks.
• Technical Soundness: The architectural designs are technically sound, leveraging established concepts (SDN, NFV, MANO) appropriately. However, the lack of performance analysis is a limitation.
• Literature Review: Comprehensive coverage of 71 references, though missing some recent 2024-2025 publications on 6G NTN standardization.
• Impact: High potential impact for satellite operators and 6G standardization efforts.
• Clarity: Excellent organization with clear progression from challenges to solutions.

Specific Comments and Revision Suggestions

1. Validation Gap: Add quantitative evaluation through simulation or analytical modeling to demonstrate framework performance, scalability, and overhead.
2. Security Analysis: Include security considerations for the integrated architecture, particularly for the distributed control scenarios.
3. Complexity Analysis: Provide computational complexity analysis for the scheduling algorithms and resource requirements for CMS deployment.
4. Comparison Framework: Include comparative analysis with existing solutions (e.g., commercial satellite operation systems, terrestrial MANO implementations).
5. Section 2.3 could be restructured to better flow from insights to challenges.
6. Add discussion on potential standardization pathways for CMS adoption.
7. Include estimated timeline for the 2025 CubeSat validation mission.
8. Clarify the role of AI/ML algorithms mentioned but not detailed in Section 5.8.
9. Expand on inter-operator coordination mechanisms for multi-stakeholder scenarios.
10. Table 3 formatting could be improved for readability.
11. Inconsistent use of acronyms (define on first use consistently).
12. Figure 2 caption could be more descriptive.
13. How does the CMS handle failures and ensure resilience?
14. What are the estimated computational and communication overheads?
15. How does the framework scale to mega-constellations (1000+ satellites)?
16. What standardization bodies are being engaged for CMS adoption?

Final Recommendation: Minor Revision
The paper makes a significant contribution to satellite-terrestrial network integration. However, it requires strengthening through quantitative validation and addressing security/scalability concerns before publication. The conceptual framework is sound and the topic is highly relevant to the journal's scope.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract section, while comprehensive, is long and it is recommended that it be further streamlined to highlight the core contributions and innovations of the study so that the reader can quickly grasp the main points.
2. Literature review completeness: the literature review section covers multiple aspects of satellite and terrestrial network management, but references to more recent studies (e.g., literature published in 2024) could be added to ensure the cutting edge of the review.
3. Methodological details: the CMS framework and the three architectures (integrated, coordinated, and adaptive) proposed in the paper are innovative, but more detailed technical implementation details, such as specific algorithmic flows or pseudo-code, are needed to enhance reproducibility.
4. Terminology consistency: Some terms (e.g., “NetOps” and “SatOps”) appear several times in the text but are not clearly defined when first used. It is recommended that a glossary of terms or definitional notes be added to the introduction or relevant sections.
5. Improve the quality of diagrams: The diagrams in Figures 1 to 9 are complex, but the labeling and lines of some diagrams (e.g., Figure 1) are not clear enough. It is suggested to optimize the design of the diagrams, such as adding legends or simplifying the layout.
6. Expansion of the conclusion section: the conclusion section summarizes the research contributions, but does not adequately discuss the specific directions of future work (e.g., further optimization of AI/ML algorithms, expansion of multi-operator scenarios). It is recommended to add a more detailed plan for future research.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all previous comments thoughtfully and improved the manuscript in terms of structure, clarity, and technical depth. The proposed CMS framework is well-motivated and contributes meaningfully to the integrated management of satellite and terrestrial networks.

The current version is complete and well-prepared for publication. I recommend acceptance without further revision.