Lunar Terrestrial Analog Experiment on the Spectral Interpretations of Rocks Observed by the Yutu-2 Rover

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewed anonymously, following the approach by Nicholas and Gordon [2011 doi: 10.1029/2011EO280001].

Chang and colleagues provide a key method to address the methodological biases of derived mineralogy. While this applies particularly for the VNIS instrument, their work sets an example for future missions to rigorously propagate uncertainties when interpreting mineralogy from visible and infrared spectra. The work also provides useful geologic context in the conclusions section. Consequently, the revisions I suggest are aimed at enhancing the accessibility of the work to the wider research community.

Editorial.
1. The abstract inadequately showcases the geologic implications already noted in the conclusions, and instead almost exclusively focuses on the methodological advance. Incorporating a few sentence summary of the conclusions will broaden community interest in the applicability of the general approach.
2. The frequency of non-traditional phrasing may interfere with reading by US or European audiences. The authors will need to conduct a comprehensive editorial revamp as exemplified by a few examples: "...site locates..." "...crater fills with..." "...equipped by the Yutu-2..." "...whether contains plagioclase..." "...near-infrared bandse.." "...ratio...has a considerable diversity..." "...comparison sample..." "...minerals distribution map was conducted..." "...recipes of database..." "...VNIS SF claims..." "...uplifted shape..." "...pronominal phase function instead of them..."

Conceptual and methodological.
Line 153. Stating the statistical confidence level of the error bar may be useful.
Fig 5. The spectral features seem rather different from those commonly presented in the literature [e.g., Remote Compositional Analysis textbook, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316888872 Ch. 3]. Perhaps add some context in the discussion to clarify the reasons for such differences.
Line 210. Are you referring to the difference, error, or accuracy? This seems to be the difference.
Line 217. Why is the grain size assumed? It seems that the equipment described in the methods section can also help measure grain sizes.
Line 228. Longer or deeper band? May help to use specific terminology.
Line 260. Will need to quantify relative proportions of soil and rock.
Line 284. Referring to a figure that shows the relative placement in plan view or perspective view in relation to the ejecta rays can be useful to clarify this interpretation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is within the scope of the journal and deals with an interesting topic.

It is well written and structured. His reading is fluent.

However, it is necessary to make some improvements to be accepted:
a) The state of the art should be extended in the introduction and delve into the problem described in the article.

b) In the discussion, the work carried out should be compared with similar works, indicating the advances and limitations of the work presented.

c) Some conclusions and lines of future work should be included. In particular, the conclusions must summarize the scientific contribution of the work presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor:

my comments:

1. please check the English version of text.
2. all acronyms must be explained in text, please check it.
3. introduction, please add more papers for scientific knowledgde analysis.

 

1.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This article feels like using sensors to detect stone minerals on the moon. But after reading it, is there anything that you can provide such that subsequent researchers can follow your research in the discussion section? Suggest if the authors can release the sensing data in public, or explain more about the reasons for the occurrence of these minerals. The rock has 11.7% olivine, 42.8% pyroxene, and 45.5% plagioclase. Why? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The article is well conceived and written and I have no objections to it. Congratulations to the authors on an interesting work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be accepted in current form