Research on the Dynamics of the Space Tubular Expandable Structure Driving Deployment Unit
Ji-Hwan Kim
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Refer to the comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer No. 1
Dear Reviewer
We sincerely thank you for reviewing our paper amidst your busy schedule. Your suggestions are of great importance, providing valuable guidance for us and offering a framework for subsequent writing. In response to the five modifications you proposed, we have made revisions, and relevant changes have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. we have tried our best to modify and hope to get your approval. Thank you!
Below is our detailed response to the five suggestions provided by the reviewers, addressing each one individually:
- Comments:
First of all, main title and subtitles and also titles of Figures should be rewritten in more compact forms.
Response:
Based on your suggestions, we have made revisions to the manuscript. Our focus was on enhancing the clarity and logic of the content. As a result, we have made changes to all the headings, ensuring they are now more concise and logically structured. To highlight these modifications, we have indicated the revised headings in red font throughout the manuscript.(Page:1;2;3;5;6;7;11;12;13;15;16;17;19;20;21;22;23;24)
- Comments:
Introduction : The first statement is just a authors’ opinion without any previous works.
Response:
In response to your feedback, we have made revisions to the manuscript. Our primary focus was on enhancing the introduction section to provide a comprehensive overview that not only presents personal viewpoints but also compares it with previous advancements in the field. We would like to clarify that due to the specialized nature of the aerospace domain, research outcomes are often treated with confidentiality by various countries. Consequently, the existing literature primarily consists of review-type articles, with limited instances of complete result disclosure, leading to the challenges faced in our previous manuscript's introduction section. Nevertheless, we have diligently sought relevant literature to strengthen the logical coherence and ensure substantial evidence to address this issue.(Page:2)
- Comments:
Why not non-dimensionalize the data for more generality ?
Response:
Thank you very much for your thorough review of the paper. Based on your suggestions, we have standardized the units of some data-fitted images in the paper to maintain a consistent millimeter scale. This decision was made to accommodate the structural expansion and contraction, resulting in both positive and negative changes in the data. One important point to clarify is that the structural carrier used in this paper is a space telescope's sleeve-type deployable structure. While the concept of sleeve-type deployable structures was introduced a long time ago (first proposed by the United States in the 1940s), our specific design, utilizing a variable-radius internal drive device to control the sleeve-type deployable structure, is a novel contribution and has not been presented before. The aim of this research series is to address the limitations of current sleeve-type deployable structures. As a result, this study holds strong uniqueness in the field of space deployable structures. To maintain the coherence of subsequent research, we have consistently kept the data processing within a certain scale. Additionally, to ensure the precision of structural variations, we have used the positive and negative changes in the data as a criterion to evaluate the rationality of the structural research.(Page:15;16;20;24)
- Comments:
Contents include too detail just like a report.
Response:
In response to your feedback, we have made efforts to streamline the content throughout the entire paper. Additionally, we have simplified the conclusions. Allow us to explain that since this research series represents a novel endeavor, we intend to provide a thorough description of the work conducted. This serves not only to establish the research methods as the theoretical foundation for this series but also to offer comprehensive guidance for future studies while upholding the coherence and rigor of scientific research. Hence, we have aimed to present the content as comprehensively as possible.
- Comments:
Why not state the references in the other contents except ‘Introduction’ ? Are the all contents derived from the authors’ own work ?
Response:
In response to your feedback, we have included references to additional literature in other sections of the research. We would like to clarify that in the initial draft, we unintentionally omitted the proper citations for the referenced literature, and for that oversight, we sincerely apologize. The revised content now includes the proper citations, which are marked in red font within the manuscript's revisions.(Page:7;8;10;11)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Research On The Dynamics Of The Deployment Units Driven By The Tubular-Shaped Deployable Structure Of A Space Telescope
Review Comments:
The article is discussing about the strategic development of space telescope to overcome the drawbacks of traditional driving and pre-tensioning devices for a space exploration. The study seems to be interesting and the article was written neatly. It may be useful to make some revisions in order to publish the article. The efforts are appreciated
1. This paper lacks little in literature to justify the contribution of the work being presented
2. Need to present the proposed algorithm with step-by-step approach and flowchart to understand the operation
3. The effectiveness of the proposed tubular deployable structured space has not been validated compared with other relevant mechanism. Also kindly compare it with a recent technique that ensures the similar technical operations.
4. Give the comparative analysis of fitness function of proposed tubular deployable structured space telescope system with the other similar mechanism.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer No. 2
Dear Reviewer
We sincerely thank you for reviewing our paper amidst your busy schedule. Your suggestions are of great importance, providing valuable guidance for us and offering a framework for subsequent writing. In response to the four modifications you proposed, we have made revisions, and relevant changes have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. we have tried our best to modify and hope to get your approval. Thank you!
Below is our detailed response to the four suggestions provided by the reviewers, addressing each one individually:
- Comments:
This paper lacks little in literature to justify the contribution of the work being presented.
Response:
We are truly grateful for your valuable suggestions. Taking your feedback into account, we have made extensive additions and comparisons in the introduction section to provide a clearer elaboration on the contributions of our work in this particular field. However, it is essential to address the unique nature of this research area, as various countries maintain confidentiality to a certain extent regarding such studies. Consequently, our literature review has faced considerable limitations. Nevertheless, we deeply appreciate the validity and scientific merit of your suggestions, and as a result, we have made every possible effort to incorporate them into the revision.(Page:2)
- Comments:
Need to present the proposed algorithm with step-by-step approach and flowchart to understand the operation.
Response:
Based on your suggestions, we have introduced and explained the algorithm construction and method of the spatial absolute node coordinate method in the dynamics research of variable path inner-driving devices. In this paper, our aim is to clarify the application of this method in the specific study and provide a detailed explanation using a combination of flowcharts and textual descriptions.(Page:6;7)
- Comments:
The effectiveness of the proposed tubular deployable structured space has not been validated compared with other relevant mechanism. Also kindly compare it with a recent technique that ensures the similar technical operations.
Response:
Based on your suggestions, we have compared other deployable space structures that use a sleeve structure to our proposed variable path inner-driving device structure from a working mechanism perspective. However, it is important to note that the application of our variable path inner-driving device structure in the deployable space sleeve is a novel approach. Existing deployable space sleeve structures use fixed driving pre-tensioning devices, which cannot maintain high deployment accuracy and stiffness after long-distance expansion. Therefore, we have made comparisons to the best of our ability in accordance with your advice, but a precise analysis between the fixed and mobile approaches is currently challenging due to their fundamentally different driving methods.(Page:2)
- Comments:
Give the comparative analysis of fitness function of proposed tubular deployable structured space telescope system with the other similar mechanism.
Response:
In response to your suggestions, we would like to provide an explanation. As we mentioned in our previous response to your suggestion, the current fixed drive pre-tensioning device limits the deployment distance of the space telescope, resulting in a lack of further improvement in the exploration capabilities of the space telescope. The introduction of a mobile drive pre-tensioning device greatly addresses this issue. From the perspective of deployable space structures, the sleeve-type deployable structure and truss-type antenna deployable structure have the same form, but their driving methods are significantly different. Using the same sleeve-type space structure as the carrier, the fixed and mobile drive pre-tensioning devices differ significantly in both structural form and working state. Therefore, in response to your suggestions, we have thoroughly searched for relevant literature to analyze similar mechanisms. However, regardless of the driving method or structural form, they are different. The only common point is that they both involve a certain degree of deployment for the sleeve-type space structure, but they still have significant shortcomings. Adhering to a scientific and rigorous research attitude, we have actively communicated with personnel from other departments in the research institute and experts in relevant fields since receiving the modification suggestions. We have discovered that the proposed structure has strong uniqueness and, compared to the deployment device of the current state-of-the-art James Webb Space Telescope, we may demonstrate more impressive capabilities.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Text fonts in all the figures should be enlarged to be more visible and readable. It is impossible to read the notes and explanations in the figures and understand the pictures. The section Conclusion should be shortened and written clearer.
There are many grammar errors ant typos in the text. The English should be improved.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer No. 3
Dear Reviewer
We sincerely thank you for reviewing our paper amidst your busy schedule. Your suggestions are of great importance, providing valuable guidance for us and offering a framework for subsequent writing. In response to the two modifications you proposed, we have made revisions, and relevant changes have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. we have tried our best to modify and hope to get your approval. Thank you!
Below is our detailed response to the two suggestions provided by the reviewers, addressing each one individually:
- Comments:
Text fonts in all the figures should be enlarged to be more visible and readable. It is impossible to read the notes and explanations in the figures and understand the pictures. The section Conclusion should be shortened and written clearer.
Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Based on your suggestions, we have made some improvements. We enhanced the clarity of the images in the manuscript by converting them into vector format and also changed the font style in the images. Additionally, we took your other suggestion into consideration and simplified the conclusion of the manuscript, making it more precise and concise.(Page:5;6;7;12;13;14;15;16;20;21;22;23;24;25)
- Comments:
There are many grammar errors ant typos in the text. The English should be improved.
Response:
In response to your feedback, we have thoroughly proofread and polished the entire manuscript. Our aim was to enhance its readability, strengthen logical coherence, and achieve greater accuracy in expression. As a result, we have eliminated ambiguities and emphasized key points. We have also focused on addressing any grammar and spelling errors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Your paper addresses a very important topic in the field of orbital vehicles, those of the deployment mechanisms.
The paper has a well-adapted structure and proves that you know very well the phenomena and corectly identified how to solve the problems that have arisen. The figures are very clear and are suggestively chosen to emphasize what is stated in the content, well framed in the text.
Your paper is of high scientific level, fits the topics of the journal and might be useful to many specialists in the field.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer No. 4
Dear Reviewer
We sincerely thank you for reviewing our paper amidst your busy schedule. Your suggestions are of great importance, providing valuable guidance for us and offering a framework for subsequent writing. In response to the modifications you proposed, we have made revisions, and relevant changes have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. we have tried our best to modify and hope to get your approval. Thank you!
Response:
Thank you very much for your affirmation of our work. However, we are aware that on this path of research, we still need to remain humble and cautious, and we will continue to dedicate ourselves to this field. In the future, we will continue to focus on the research of key technologies related to large-aperture telescope sleeve-type deployable mechanisms, hoping to receive more valuable guidance from you. Once again, we express our gratitude and thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Author
The article is not formatted according to journal "Applied Science" format. Figures are not well plotted and its not visible in right format.
Authors performed experimental and simulation model for displacement variation at different time intervals. Author mention this work shows primary results with some basic results ignoring complexity. Thats not issue. But presentation style is very poor.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer No. 5
Dear Reviewer
We sincerely thank you for reviewing our paper amidst your busy schedule. Your suggestions are of great importance, providing valuable guidance for us and offering a framework for subsequent writing. In response to the two modifications you proposed, we have made revisions, and relevant changes have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. we have tried our best to modify and hope to get your approval. Thank you!
Below is our detailed response to the two suggestions provided by the reviewers, addressing each one individually:
- Comments:
The article is not formatted according to journal "Applied Science" format. Figures are not well plotted and its not visible in right format.
Response:
Thank you very much for providing your feedback. We have made revisions based on your suggestions. Firstly, regarding the issue with the manuscript format, we carefully read the journal's submission guidelines and found that the journal does not impose strict formatting requirements on initial manuscripts. However, in response to your request, we have made the necessary formatting changes. Secondly, we have further modified the image format to align it with the journal's specifications, as per your feedback.(Page:5;6;7;12;13;14;15;16;20;21;22;23;24)
- Comments:
Authors performed experimental and simulation model for displacement variation at different time intervals. Author mention this work shows primary results with some basic results ignoring complexity. Thats not issue. But presentation style is very poor.
Response:
Based on your feedback, we have made revisions to the organization and presentation of the content. We have simplified the complex information as much as possible and improved the logical flow and readability of the writing to ensure more precise expression. Additionally, we have emphasized the key points of the research and made every effort to enhance the overall quality of the presentation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
This manuscript contains an analysis and discussion focused on the dynamic response of the deployment units driven by the tubular-shaped deployable structure; it is a part of the space telescope. Generally, the paper may be interesting for the journal's Readers, especially taking into account experimental-numerical character of this study. However, some parts need modifications and corrections.
[1] Numerical analysis is delivered using traditional formulation of the Finite Element Method but no relevant classical literature has been recalled. It is not clear why the Authors modify the notation from 'q' to 'e' in eqns (23-28) - this is not explained. The most important issue is a complete lack of description of the mesh, finite element types, and computer software used to conduct computer simulations. Direct integration method, for instance, is well known in the literature for almost 30 years, see: https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(93)90368-N.
[2] The Authors observe that (cit.): "Due to greater uncertainty at the free end compared to the constrained end, an analysis of the displacement components at the free end is conducted." It seems that the Authors have postponed all the uncertainty sources in their model, and such a statement needs deeper discussion. There is no even qualitative discussion where such an uncertainty is larger and where is smaller, whereas the additional methods are available in the literature, see at least: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X18307624.
[3] Some legends on the figures attached are almost invisible and need re-edition.
[4] The experimental study needs some discussion of the experimental error and recalling basic values of the measurements resulting error.
The very careful revision of the text is mandatory due to some linguistic errors, see (cit.) "After the hexahedral mesh division is performed." and also some others.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer No. 6
Dear Reviewer
We sincerely thank you for reviewing our paper amidst your busy schedule. Your suggestions are of great importance, providing valuable guidance for us and offering a framework for subsequent writing. In response to the five modifications you proposed, we have made revisions, and relevant changes have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. we have tried our best to modify and hope to get your approval. Thank you!
Below is our detailed response to the five suggestions provided by the reviewers, addressing each one individually:
- Comments:
TNumerical analysis is delivered using traditional formulation of the Finite Element Method but no relevant classical literature has been recalled. It is not clear why the Authors modify the notation from 'q' to 'e' in eqns (23-28) - this is not explained. The most important issue is a complete lack of description of the mesh, finite element types, and computer software used to conduct computer simulations. Direct integration method, for instance, is well known in the literature for almost 30 years, see: https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(93)90368-N.
Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. It has been instrumental in enhancing our paper. In response to your suggestions, we carefully reviewed the relevant literature on the direct integration method referenced in our work. In the literature we examined, the symbols used in equations (23-28) were denoted as "e." However, upon consulting the reference you provided, we found that the correct symbols should be "q." Therefore, we proactively searched for other sources and confirmed that the symbol "e" in the manuscript should indeed be changed to "q." We sincerely appreciate your advice, and we have rectified this error in the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have incorporated the reference you provided as the correct citation in the revised version. Furthermore, as per your suggestion, we have added details about the mesh model and analysis module type in the finite element simulation analysis section, providing a comprehensive description.(Page:11;17;18)
- Comments:
he Authors observe that (cit.): "Due to greater uncertainty at the free end compared to the constrained end, an analysis of the displacement components at the free end is conducted." It seems that the Authors have postponed all the uncertainty sources in their model, and such a statement needs deeper discussion. There is no even qualitative discussion where such an uncertainty is larger and where is smaller, whereas the additional methods are available in the literature, see at least: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X18307624.
Response:
Thank you very much for your feedback. Here, I would like to explain that the purpose of analyzing the constrained end and free end is to consider the displacement of the variable-diameter internal driving unit with a thin-walled flexible beam structure at the non-continuous surface during the driving and retraction process. When not subjected to radial loads, the thin-walled flexible beam structure exhibits a "free end" condition. However, when subjected to radial loads, it exhibits a "constrained end" condition at the non-continuous surface. These two conditions do not exist independently but occur in a complete process, where the "free end" appears momentarily, albeit with probability.
Considering the rigor of scientific research, we analyze both displacement components for both scenarios. But why do we consider the "free end" condition, which appears briefly, to have greater uncertainty? This is due to the unique nature of the variable-diameter internal driving unit's motion within the spatial sleeve, which involves transitional non-continuous surfaces (step-like). As a result, there is a probability of momentary failure due to axial friction and radial preloading. Although this situation occurs with a low probability, considering the overall structural stability, its uncertainty is greater than that of the "constrained end" condition. Therefore, we first analyze the "free end" condition.
- Comments:
Some legends on the figures attached are almost invisible and need re-edition
Response:
Thank you very much for your feedback. Based on your suggestions, we have made further modifications to the image format in accordance with the journal's requirements.(Page:5;6;7;12;13;14;15;16;20;21;22;23;24)
- Comments:
The experimental study needs some discussion of the experimental error and recalling basic values of the measurements resulting error.
Response:
Thank you for your valuable suggestions, and we have taken them into consideration. In the discussion section of Chapter 4, we have provided a brief analysis of the reasons for the occurrence of errors. These errors primarily arose from using pin connections in the joint parts of various beam elements during the experimental phase. The errors were influenced by material processing and environmental factors, resulting in discrepancies during the tests. However, it is worth noting that the errors remained within a small range, as evidenced by the nearly consistent displacement variations in the fitting curves from all three stages. Additionally, the structure operates in a spatial environment with zero gravity during orbit, making these errors negligible. Moreover, the structure is equipped with a temperature control system to mitigate any impact of material properties.(Page:25)
- Comments:
The very careful revision of the text is mandatory due to some linguistic errors, see (cit.) "After the hexahedral mesh division is performed." and also some others.
Response:
Based on your feedback, we have conducted a comprehensive proofreading and refinement of the entire manuscript. Our primary objectives were to enhance readability, ensure logical coherence, and achieve higher accuracy in expression. We carefully addressed any ambiguities, while emphasizing key points. Furthermore, we dedicated special attention to resolving grammar and spelling errors, ensuring the manuscript's overall quality.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Authors has significantly improved the article in content and graphs based on reviewer comments.
Accept
Author Response
We are deeply grateful for your recognition and once again sincerely appreciate your review of our manuscript amidst your busy schedule. Your valuable suggestions for revisions have greatly benefited us in our scientific research journey. We sincerely wish you a joyful life and a successful career.
Reviewer 6 Report
This manuscript still needs corrections because (1) some of the Reviewer's comments have been postponed and (2) Equations (22) and (29) are erroneous - three or two different definitions have been associated with the same symbols there. The references section has still chaotic style, which must be improved.
This is not the role of the Reviewer to correct someone else paper, so this is the last chance for the Authors to rewrite the paper in a correct way.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We sincerely appreciate your review of our paper once again, despite your busy schedule. We have made every effort to address the two modifications you suggested, and the relevant changes have been marked in red in the revised draft. We have done our best to make these modifications and hope to obtain your approval. Thank you very much.
1. Comments:
This manuscript still needs corrections because (1) some of the Reviewer's comments have been postponed and (2) Equations (22) and (29) are erroneous - three or two different definitions have been associated with the same symbols there. The references section has still chaotic style, which must be improved.
Response:
We express our gratitude for your reiterated modification suggestions. Your thorough review has greatly assisted in improving our paper. Firstly, in response to your feedback, we have incorporated references related to finite element analysis in the simulation section (Page: 17). This particular reference focuses on stress analysis of thin-walled structures. Secondly, we have discussed the uncertainty of the free end (Page: 13). Next, we have added error range values and corresponding stages of extreme errors in the error analysis section, along with an analysis of the reasons for these variations (Page: 25). Subsequently, we have made corrections to Equations (22) and (29) (Page: 11; 13). Lastly, we have revised the format of the reference section according to the journal's requirements (Page: 26; 27; 28).
2. Comments:
This is not the role of the Reviewer to correct someone else paper, so this is the last chance for the Authors to rewrite the paper in a correct way.
Response:
Once again, we have polished the English quality of the paper, making extensive improvements in the introduction, theoretical analysis, simulation analysis, and experimental sections. We hope these changes meet your satisfaction, and we sincerely thank you for your hard work.
Round 3
Reviewer 6 Report
The Authors have improved their manuscript according to the Reviewer's comments.
Some minor English errors need to be removed.
