Kinematic Calibration Method for Six-Hardpoint Positioning Mechanisms Using Optimal Measurement Pose
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-The following corrections should be added for improving the quality of the paper.
1- Figures 6 and 10 should be improved on vertical and horizontal scales.
2- DETMAX algorithm should be described in details for readers.
3-The sensitiviy of the 12 DOF platform is very important for accurate positioning with high quality positioning. There have been indicates position mean error by 78.4 % . Mean attitude error by 70.6 %. These errors are not acceptable for such system's performance.
The paper should be improved with a broad discussion for comparison with traditional DETMAX. It is not clear to understand on Figure 8 numbers of iterations with only 5 iterations. What is the unit of frequency on the vertical scale on Figure 7. There are many missing on Figures for units.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have demonstrated great effort in conducting the work presented in the paper. The paper is well-organized and interesting. They have followed the necessary scientific approach to evaluate the proposed work.
There are some minor changes that need to be made:
Figures 5 and 9 should be replaced with vector images as they are not clear enough.
It is suggested that the authors include future work directions in the conclusion section.
If possible, a comparison study could be conducted (optional).
I suggest authors to refer recent works than old works.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors propose a kinematic calibration method which select optimal measurement pose based on the observability index O1. The method can identify and compensate for the kinematic parameter errors of the six-hardpoint positioning mechanism.
As discussed in the manuscript, this work is relevant for real-world applications and serves to improve the pose accuracy of the large aperture primary mirror, thereby improve the imaging quality of the ground-based large aperture telescope.
I think that there are some points that should be revised for publication. I would like to ask the authors to consider the following points:
Please consider emphasizing the connection between the six-hardpoint positioning mechanism and the telescope in the abstract, and explain the significance of improving the accuracy of this mechanism.
Page 1, line 11, it should be: "... kinematic parameter errors" instead of "... kinematic errors".
Page 1, line 31-32, it should be: "the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope" instead of "the Large Synaptic Survey Telescope".
Page 5, line 174, it should be: "... a pose adjustment" instead of "... the pose adjustment".
Page 5, line 185, it should be: "substituting Equation (6) into Equation (4)" instead of "substituting (6) into (4)".
Page 8, line 243-244, reference [29-32] should be cited here.
Page 9, line 269-76, the "σ" in this paragraph should use italics.
Page 9, line 278, add a period at the end of the caption.
Page 12, Figure 4, it should be: "Δk-Δk-1" instead of "Δk-Δk-1".
Page 16, line 492, it should be: "the Kinematic Calibration Method" instead of "Kinematic Calibration Methods".
Consider rephrasing page 19, lines 577-580, "Then, introduce the observability indices …" and "Then, the performance of the five observability indices …", I think these contents can be better expressed.
My recommendation for this paper is "Minor Revision" because I think the technical contribution is relevant to the field but there is still room to improve the presentation and impact of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
