Motion Estimation of Non-Cooperative Space Objects Based on Monocular Sequence Images
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thanks a lot for submitting this paper dealing with a relevant topic. From my point of view, the idea of your scientific approach is sound. Nevertheless, you might want to consider the following suggestions for improvements:
The English language and style have to be improved. The abstract contains more than 10 mispellings and errors and this language level is continued in the rest of the paper. I strongly encourage to ask a native speaker for support with respect to this topic. I will list a few of the weaknesses, but not all of them.
line 8: . the ... => . The
line 9: I suggest calling the target an object, as it is more neutral.
line 10: Scenario => scenarios
line 11: sequence image => sequence of images
line 12 estimate motion => estimate the motion
line 13: so it cost small calculation and run stable => so it has small calculation costs runs stable
line 14: realizes => implements
line 15: including attitude quaternion, angular velocity => including attitude quaternion and angular velocity
line 22: have become a realistic problem to be solved => have become realistic problems to be solved
line 29: algorithm => algorithms
line 30: satellite => satellites
line 30 ff (As a standard configuration...): The sentence is incomplete
line 37: target => object (see above)
line 58: on particle filter => either "on a particle filter" or "on particle filters"
line 66: present => presented
line 75: gives => provides or explains or introduces
eq (1): there is a `,`after the T, but it looks strange as it is not aligned with the rest of the equation. Does it has a mathematical meaning? The same holds for the other equations.
line 85: ... T is the coordinates => ... T are the coordinates...
line 91: Where u, => where u,
line 94: non-cooperated => non-cooperating
line 100 matrix(Figure 2). => matrix (Figure 2).
line 100, reference to fig. 2: I disagree: from my point of view, fig 2 shows the inverse representation, i.e. the movement of the camera with respect to the target/object.
line 102: Caption of fig 1: Figure 1 The relative => Figure 1: The relative
Captions of all figures: please provide 2-3 sentences describing what is shown in the figure, e.g. what do the arrows mean? What is Delta G or Delta L? It should be possible to understand the figure without the main text.
line 113: Where => where
line 115: The first understanding => The first interpretation
line 117: same as line 115
line 127: is consisted of two parts, and part => consists of two parts and the part
line 135: space after ','
line 141: You have not introduced the abbreviation 'SVD'
line 177: In order to known what information needed => In order to know what information is needed
line 178: tp => to
line 185: The reference you are pointing to with 'iii' remains unclear
line 193: What do you mean by ' method in paper'
lines 199-202 are a repetition of lines 195-198
lines 205-212: The origin of the numbers used is not explained. Are those arbitrarily chosen data? Or do they reflect a specific configuration? As you are relying your results solely on these numbers, the reader is not able to decide if the results shown in figures 8 and 9 are good or poor.
Your motivation is based on the assumption that calculation costs are small for your approach and suitable even for small devices like microcontrollers. As you are not including the feature point extraction in the calculation costs, this argument remains very weak. Please include this in your discussion.
Best regards!
Author Response
Point 1: The English language and style have to be improved. The abstract contains more than 10 mispellings and errors and this language level is continued in the rest of the paper. I strongly encourage to ask a native speaker for support with respect to this topic. I will list a few of the weaknesses, but not all of them.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. We feel sorry for our poor writings, however, we do invite a colleague of us who is a native English speaker help polish our article. Due to our friend’s help, the article was edited extensively. And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable for you.
Point 2: The origin of the numbers used is not explained. Are those arbitrarily chosen data? Or do they reflect a specific configuration? As you are relying your results solely on these numbers, the reader is not able to decide if the results shown in figures 8 and 9 are good or poor.
Response 2: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, it is necessary to explain the origin of these numbers. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft. We have added how to select these numbers in this paper. The numbers was choosen from the general satellites, and they are simply a set of horizontally comparable parameters that are randomly assumed that do not affect the results.
Point 3: Your motivation is based on the assumption that calculation costs are small for your approach and suitable even for small devices like microcontrollers. As you are not including the feature point extraction in the calculation costs, this argument remains very weak. Please include this in your discussion.
Response 3: We strongly agree your point that the feature point extraction costs a lot of computing resources, and we explained this problem in our discussion. However, in terms of hardware resources and the motion estimation process, the consumption of the mothed proposed in this paper is low. We verified the validity of the motion estimation, and the image processing algorithm is not the focus of this paper; of course, the image processing algorithm is very important and is the premise of this method.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is perfect and innovative, it is a minor change
1 Title is not suitable
2 change the abstract
3. Describe the flow charts
4 Add the following references
DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-162007
DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-171567
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2018.1503356
DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-18125
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00500-018-3242-6
Weighted average rating (war) method for solving group decision making problem using triangular cubic fuzzy hybrid aggregation (tcfha) operator
Author Response
Point 1: Title is not suitable.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We changed the title from ”Motion estimation of non-cooperative space targets for autonomous navigation based on monocular sequence image” to ”Motion estimation of noncooperative space objects based on monocular sequence images”.
Point 2: Change the abstract.
Response 2: Due to our poor English writings, we do invite a colleague of us who is a native English speaker help polish our abstract. We hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable for you.
Point 3: Describe the flow charts.
Response 3: We describe the Figure 1~9.
Point 4: Add the following references.
Response 4: Thank you for the referneces you provided. We add them at line 226.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have gone through the manuscript “Motion estimation of non-cooperative space targets for autono-mous navigation based on monocular sequence image”. I found it interesting and useful, but there are lot of flaws in the manuscript. It cannot be accepted in current form.
My recommendation is to accept the article with following modification.
1. Title of article is too long, should be concise.
2. Abstract is generic and need to add with specific information
3. There are various typo and grammatical mistake and need to update.
4. Authors have to add novelty clearly
5. There are various models available, how the current study is different from others.
6. There is no discussion section. Authors need to add results and discussion section and should add comprehensive discussion on results.
7. Bench mark table should be added by giving the compression of current study with literature by giving its pros and cons.
8. References are inadequate and need to add more recent literature.
Author Response
Point 1: Title of article is too long, should be concise.
Response 1: We changed the title from ”Motion estimation of non-cooperative space targets for autonomous navigation based on monocular sequence image” to ”Motion estimation of noncooperative space objects based on monocular sequence images”.
Point 2: Abstract is generic and need to add with specific information
Response 2: Due to our poor English writings, we polish our abstract. The advantages of our method are describe in abstract.
Point 3: There are various typo and grammatical mistake and need to update.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestions. We feel sorry for our poor writings, however, we do invite a colleague of us who is a native English speaker help polish our article. Due to our friend’s help, the article was edited extensively. And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable for you.
Point 4: Authors have to add novelty clearly.
Response 4: Thank you for your reminding. It is really a problem to the whole quality of our article. We feel sorry for our carelessness. We have added the novelty in the discussion and conclusion of the paper and we also feel great thanks for your point out.. This method is not limited by the baseline length as in the stereo vision algorithm and has no constraints on the size and range of the object. It can be applied to asteroid exploration missions. This method does not need to know prior information, such as the three-dimensional model of the object or artificial markers. It only uses the sequence im-ages of the monocular camera to estimate the motion of the object.
Point 5: There are various models available, how the current study is different from others.
Response 5: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are various models available. Different from other methods requiring binocular cameras or radar to measure data, we only use a monocular camera, which has low requirements for the configuration of the measurement sensors. Moreover, this mothed does not use complex fusion filtering algorithms. All these contribute to the application effect of on-board autonomous navigation.
Point 6: There is no discussion section. Authors need to add results and discussion section and should add comprehensive discussion on results.
Response 6: According to your nice suggestions, we have added the discussion to our previous draft. And in the discussion, We supplemented the analysis of the simulation results, including the differences, advantages and disadvantages of this method. In addition, we have added how to select these numbers of the simulation in this paper so that readers can have a comprehensive evaluation of the analysis results.
Point 7: Bench mark table should be added by giving the compression of current study with literature by giving its pros and cons.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions.We added the analysis of the characteristics of the current mainstream methods in the discussion and the advantages and disadvantages of this method are compared The computational complexity and processing speed are the advantages of this method. Similarly, this method has some disadvantages, such as being unable to estimate the real size of the translation and requiring high image processing accuracy.
Point 8: References are inadequate and need to add more recent literature.
Response 8: We added the 6 references in our paper. These reference are recent literature. We added them at line 40 and 226.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thanks a lot for the new version of your paper. From my point of view, your have improved the paper considerably.
Best regards!
Reviewer 3 Report
Revision are satisfactory, therefore I recommend it for publication
