A Framework for Assessing the Interference from NGSO Satellite Systems to a Radio Astronomy System
, Haiwang Wang 1,2, Shiyi Xia 1,2, Jiachao Chang 1,4, Fengwei Shao 1,4, Lin Shang 1,4, Yuemei Hu 4 and Guotong Li 1,2,3,4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a model developed in order to evaluate the magnitude of potential interference between different communication systems operating both in Earth orbit and on surface (in particular between non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellites and radioastronomy telescopes). A method for estimating the Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power for RAS telescoped is presented, taking into account multiple NGSO satellites.
The article is extremely well written and clear, it presents interesting methods. The authors showcase a more than satisfactory grasp on the subject. The effort is justified by the large number of satellites currently present in orbit, which is only bound to increase in the future. The methods and reasoning behind the presented calculation are well described, and adequate for the case.
Point-like remarks and comments:
line 103-105, "Ensuring that... any direction": although I understand the meaning of the sentence, the formulation could be clearer;
line 193: you could indicate ϵmin in Figure 4, if it does not over-crowd the plot too much;
line 213-216, "Here, the concept ... satellite system": I am not able to understand the full meaning of this sentence, maybe some words are missing (plus/or typos);
line 328: you could specify from where data on the population density distribution was retrieved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
“A framework of accessing the interference from NGSO satellite system to radio astronomy system.” I have studied your work in detail. The authors propose a method to characterize interference in the RAS band by dividing the field of view of the NGSO satellite into cells and selecting representative points for each cell, determining the probability distribution of EIRP in each cell,
The shortcomings I have mentioned need to be corrected.
The proposed method should be highlighted in the summary section. It would be more appropriate for the sections to start from 1 instead of 0.
Contributions are written at the end of the introduction section. But here, as in the summary, the sentences were introduced with the method that was always developed. The proposed method should be highlighted. Subheadings should start with a capital letter. In addition, spelling errors in the study should be reviewed. The texts given in Figure 3 are not readable. The relevant figure needs to be updated. Limitations of the study should be presented in the Discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
