Non-Magnetic Negative Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Support Structure between Payloads in the Taiji Space Gravitational Wave Detection Satellite
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. There is a huge study gap between this work and literature. The authors must include the latest research results related to the manuscript.
2. The figure 2 schematic diagram is to blur. modify it.
3. Conclusion is not up to the mark some important results are missing.
4. please check the whole manuscript carefully for typos and grammer mistakes.
The quality of English language is average need to be improve further.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have already responded to and made changes based on your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors prepared manuscript on Non-magnetic negative Coefficient of thermal expansion support structure between payloads in the Taiji Space Gravitational Wave Detection Satellite. Authors proposed a preliminary design of a specified support rods of a high thermal stability for Taiji satellite and its interferometer to improve an accuracy of measurements by eliminating thermal expansion of the material. Manuscript is interesting and presented material is rather clear. Theory could be better separated from an experiment (pages 4, 6, 10, 12 and 13). But because the form presented is short so it can be ignored eventually. However sections’ division should be reordered and some parts reorganized. Section titles are ill-thought out and need double check (e.g. section 3, section 3.3). Also manuscript needs text editing. English spelling, orthography and style must be improved (e.g. Lines 77, 111, 113, 135).
Line 119-Should be a new paragraph. Please improve style.
Line 134-Should be “of the same length”.
Line 140-Should be a new paragraph. Please improve style.
Lines 142-147-Please change the text order according to the equations’ numbering. First should be equations 1-3 and next 2,4,5.
Line 157-Should be “…and the equations”. Also after dot should be a capital letter.
Line 158-Should be “values”
Line 160-Please provide a full description of the table 1.
Line 196-Should be space after the number.
Line 208-Please reorganize manuscript because equation 9 is placed in another section 3.2, page 10.
Lines 214-215, 218, 228-229, 234-Please improve English style.
Figure 6-Please complete caption.
Line 258-Please improve spelling.
Line 263-Should be “figures”.
Line 275-Please provide reference.
Line 294- Please improve style. After “change” should be dot and new sentence.
Figures 10 and 11 have the same caption. Please correct.
Line 328-Should be “figures”.
Lines 336-339- Please improve style.
Line 372- Please improve style.
Manuscript needs text editing. English spelling, orthography and style must be improved (e.g. Lines 77, 111, 113, 135).
Line 119-Should be a new paragraph. Please improve style.
Line 134-Should be “of the same length”.
Line 140-Should be a new paragraph. Please improve style.
Lines 142-147-Please change the text order according to the equations’ numbering. First should be equations 1-3 and next 2,4,5.
Line 157-Should be “…and the equations”. Also after dot should be a capital letter.
Line 158-Should be “values”
Line 160-Please provide a full description of the table 1.
Line 196-Should be space after the number.
Line 208-Please reorganize manuscript because equation 9 is placed in another section 3.2, page 10.
Lines 214-215, 218, 228-229, 234-Please improve English style.
Figure 6-Please complete caption.
Line 258-Please improve spelling.
Line 263-Should be “figures”.
Line 275-Please provide reference.
Line 294- Please improve style. After “change” should be dot and new sentence.
Figures 10 and 11 have the same caption. Please correct.
Line 328-Should be “figures”.
Lines 336-339- Please improve style.
Line 372- Please improve style.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have already responded to and made changes based on your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Details of the FEA model (geometry, mesh, boundary conductions, physics, and solver method) are missing. Presented information in the manuscript is not enough to justify the correctness and/or the fidelity of modeling.
2. Section 3 for the experimental setup is quite difficult to follow. The setup and procedure should be reorganized to be more instructive and presented in a way that the readers can easily follow to repeat the experiment. The same concern is suggested for the FEA model presented in Section 2.
3. It is unclear how the values of support distance of 200 mm as a validation design (line 153), the heat ting powers of 45.36 W, 25 W and 50W (lines 234-235) are set.
4. References should be provided for Eq. (8), (9) and (10).
5. It will be helpful if the manuscript describes the physical meaning of negative CTE since this is an important property for the application presented.
6. It is strange that the manuscript compare the experimental data with simulation, [model-data]/[model]. It is better to compare the simulation result with experimental data, [model-data]/[data]. Thus, the error should be reevaluated.
7. Lines 363-364: It will be helpful if all the CTE values from simulation result and experimental data are emphasized again or the associated section that the values are reported should be indicated.
8. In the abstract, the full word of NLPQL should be presented.
9. Introduction
9.1. Basic background of the gravitational wave (lines 29-33),
9.2. Why is the detected frequency limited? (lines 33-35)
9.3. A brief description of Michelson interferometer should be presented (lines 41-42)
9.4. What is the temperature variation level of the space environment (lines 50-51)
9.5. What is the CTE value of aluminum alloys and titanium alloys? (line 65)
9.6. A brief description of outgassing phenomena should be presented (line 74)
9.7. In the last paragraph, the scope is well clarified. But the objective and work to be done should be clearly described.
10. The following incomplete and confusing information must be rectified.
10.1. Figures 2 and 10: The dimension/scale should be indicated in the schematics?
10.2. Figures 6-8: The location of each sensor is unclear.
10.3. Figures 12 and 14: Typo “cure” must be corrected.
10.4. Table 1: The unit of density (g/cm3), and data with the unit of W/m.K presented in the fourth column seems to be the “thermal conductivity”, rather than the “heat transfer rate” associated with Equation (7).
10.5. It will be helpful if the symbol Odect is presented when introducing the response of the detector (line 286).
English editing and proofreading are recommended. Multiple errors are noticed in the manuscript, especially subject-verb agreement and the use of punctuation marks (comma, period, space, etc.).
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have already responded to and made changes based on your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved. However, some important points need to be addressed.
1. Missing details of the simulation setup is a serious concern. This work deals with a sensitive result, but the following information is not provided: (i) the mesh (e.g. the minimum, and maximum size, and the number of elements), (ii) the initial conditions (e.g., temperature and pressure), and (iii) the boundary conditions (insulation sections (if any), ambient temperature, etc.). Without these details, it is impossible to repeat the modeling and simulation.
2. Details of the dimensions (all parts in the longitudinal and radial directions) presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 are unclear and insufficient for replication.
3. The units of "GPa" and "MPa" need to be corrected all over the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have already responded to and made changes based on your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
All the concerns have been addressed faithfully.
