Shielding Grounding Optimization Method for Spaceborne Multi-Cable

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is devoted to solving an important practical problem - interference suppression in cable lines. The paper presents practical results to a greater extent than theoretical ones, which are inherent in articles. In the paper, it is necessary to describe in more detail the method that made it possible to suppress interference and improve the design of the cable. Modeling is a means to achieve a result. It is necessary to add more formulas and thereby paint the method. These improvements have greatly strengthened the article. I ask the authors to take into account the comments. Moreover, the work is not neatly framed, figure 6 got out of the frame.

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review efforts and insightful comments on this manuscript. Those comments are very valuable and helpful for improving the quality and readability of our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and have revised the manuscript according to your comments. We show our point-by-point responses to each of the comments in the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the reviewed manuscript a grounding optimization method for spaceborne multi-cable shields was presented. The reviewed paper is very interesting but a few modifications should be made:

·        The conclusions section needs a major revision. The novelty of the paper must be more clearly demonstrated. Moreover in this section, should be mentioned advantages and disadventages of the proposed method.

·        Please also supplement the paper with further options for modification of the proposed method.

·        References section is very poor and should be extended.

·        The authors should review the list of reference again to include more reputable citations.

In the chapter 2, please also add a paragraph to show the novelty and compare the paper with the literature which also used the same concept.

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review efforts and insightful comments on this manuscript. Those comments are very valuable and helpful for improving the quality and readability of our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and have revised the manuscript according to your comments. We show our point-by-point responses to each of the comments in the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Observations regarding Article #2246552 APPLSCI

General:

-        The Article is well organized and structured and focuses on a method to efficiently determine shielding status of space borne electronics.

-        “kHz” should not be written with capital k, otherwise it might be confused with Kelvin

-        Some abbreviations, such as “CST” should be explained for less documented readers.

-        How would you describe the effect of parasite capacitances, and inductances, compared to the results of your simulations and solution? Could these significantly alter the results you obtained? These should be described in the Conclusions section.

-        Some issues regarding English and understanding of some phrases have been noticed during read. The paper needs a review of English and some minor corrections.

 

-        I suggest enriching the references list with more papers, in support for your research and as a comparison to other results that similar researches had led to.

Recommendations:

- Please try to add a small comparison between the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed solution, compared to similar ones.

- The Conclusion section may also contain recommendations for industry sectors that may make use of your solution.

- Please try to add some ideas about the effect of parasite capacitances and inductances, also.

Author Response

Thanks for your kind review efforts and insightful comments on this manuscript. Those comments are very valuable and helpful for improving the quality and readability of our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and have revised the manuscript according to your comments. We show our point-by-point responses to each of the comments in the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did a good job on the article. After making changes, the article can be published.