Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting work, I am rather satisfied with this manuscript.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your attitude and kind attention towards our work. According to the reviewers’ comments, we have made some changes to the article text, added the required figure, and some explanations were given.

We hope that our corrections have made our article more understandable.

With kind regards,
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper looks like a substantiation for the new original experiment for vertical sounding of the polar ionosphere from high altitude orbit. The main problem of experiments of such kind is energy balance of the proposed radio line and it looks like the authors  succeeded to get the positive answer. I have very minor comments to the paper text.

1. It is probably should be should be used the word "longitudinal" instead of latitudinal (marked by yellow in the attached text).
2. Determination of the sub-ionospheric point in the proposed experiment is not the same as in GPS TEC calculations. For GPS TEC the ionosphere is presented as thin layer at the altitude 450 km, and this altitude is constant for any calculation and determination of the sub-ionospheric point. In the case of the given experiment the altitude will coincide with the HmF2 position which will very with the daytime and, season and helio-geophysical conditions.

Nevertheless I want to underline that the paper is well organized, and proposed experiment is well reasoned what gives me right to recommend it for publication with very minor corrections

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your attitude and kind attention towards our work. According to the reviewers’ comments, we have made some changes to the article text, added the required figure, and some explanations were given.

We hope that our corrections have made our article more understandable.

With kind regards,
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

I found this an interesting paper. I did feel that the model situation was perhaps too simple and removed from reality. Often this is a good place to start so i dont see that as a large negative for the paper. I feel the authors do need to state this more clearly though. Additional and specific comments are in the attached annotated PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your attitude and kind attention towards our work. According to the reviewers’ comments, we have made some changes to the article text, added the required figure, and some explanations were given.

We hope that our corrections have made our article more understandable.

With kind regards,
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc