Next Article in Journal
Landslide Risk Assessment in Eastern Kentucky, USA: Developing a Regional Scale, Limited Resource Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Activities to Promote the Moon as an Absolute Calibration Reference
Previous Article in Journal
A High-Quality Instance-Segmentation Network for Floating-Algae Detection Using RGB Images
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Remote Sensing
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/rs14246250
Review Report
remotesensing-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

An Improved Altimeter in-Orbit Range Noise-Level Estimation Approach Based on Along-Track Differential Method

Remote Sens. 2022, 14(24), 6250; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14246250
by Xiaonan Liu 1,2, Weiya Kong 1, Hanwei Sun 1,*, Yongsheng Xu 3 and Yaobing Lu 1
Reviewer 1:
Constantin Mavrocordatos
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2022, 14(24), 6250; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14246250
Submission received: 30 September 2022 / Revised: 24 November 2022 / Accepted: 8 December 2022 / Published: 9 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Copernicus Sentinels Missions Calibration, Validation, FRM and Innovation Approaches in Satellite-Data Quality Assessment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good paper, well structured and with good discussions and clear conclusions. A few minor comments for improving / clarifying even further:

L76: The paragraph addresses repeated orbit observations and highlights the issues linked to the duration of the cycle and the time between observations. However, a method commonly used consists in exploiting cross-overs (comparisons on the crossing between ascending and descending orbits) within a cycle. Such comparisons are made on the same point and in time intervals shorter than the orbital cycle. Could you comment and possibly address cross-over comparisons in this section. 

L151: Eq.1 does not seem correct or the contributors are not clear. Why is there a minus sign before DeltaRtrans if it is an error (i.e. residual error after correction of the effects) and not a +/- instead? Adding absolute values and errors does not seem correct. Or is this term an additional range term induced by atmospheric delays? In this case the troposphere and ionosphere "errors" should be called "delays". But again, the other contributors (e.g. tides, atmospheric pressure, etc) can be positive or negative. Please clarify the definition of the "error" terms (errors or additional delays) or correct the formula.  

L168: ...the azimuth resolution is approximately 300m... I think it is meant that the along-track sampling distance is 300m. Not to be confused with the resolution which for a conventional altimeter is several km (antenna footprint) and can only be reduced down to 300m (or even less) with synthetic aperture techniques on newer generation altimeters.

L197: same as L168: confusion between resolution and sampling distance.

L209-213: Not clear what is the issue with the "final differential data". It could maybe better explained e.g. using indexes to identify what these "final" data are.

L335: Jason series are uncorrected SSH. This means that the signal contains contributions from higher frequency disturbances, like for example the ionospheric delay. If uncorrected, a fraction of this signal will remain unfiltered and will be mixed with the altimeter noise. Could this affect the conclusions and comparisons shown in table 3 (noise level based on SSH data for Jason-3 vs SLA data from S6). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please check the attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop