Design and Evaluation of Flexible Support Based on Space Mirror

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

my main reserve is that the reference list provided appears wrong and that it is pasted from a different paper (similar authors 2023, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/16/9160). This makes it impossible for to me do crosschecks. I apologize, also figure and several introduction section must be improved. The laboratory and simulation sections are almost ok, however, also these parts need further improvement (citations)...

Punctual comments in the pdf comments/

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Almost ok. Same wording to be reviewed.

Author Response

Comments and Revisions

1. Why capital letters?

[Changed the word into “ Ultra-Low-Expansion Glass (Corning)”]

2. None impostata da carmelo arcidiacono

[have trouble for understanding this comments]

3. It is not clear how this paper relates to the 2023 paper Lightweight Design and Evaluation of Square Reflector of some of the authors presenting the new one

[The 2023 paper focused on the lightweight design of the reflector, i.e. the mirror itself. This paper focused on the lightweight design of the supporting structure of the reflector. ]

4. The comments related to reference

[Tidy up and highlighted the reference numbers, deleted the irrelevant references ]

5. The comments related to spelling issue

[Tidy up the false spelling]

6. 1- comments: it is same as 2023 paper

[Similar supporting system but different parameter of the reflector applied, i.e.500mm×500mm has been applied in 2023 paper, compared to 550 mm × 450 mm used in this paper]

7. 3- comments: used the 2023 paper figure

[The figure is to illustrate the standardized presentation of hexagonal stiffener structure, hence, the demonstration is similar as the figure in 2023 paper]

8. Table 3-comments: This number seems one order of magnitude too low

[The 0.05 coefficient of linear expansion on Invar steel has been used in live case. ]

9. Table 4-comments: Are the modes order by power?

[They are ordered by frequency]

10. Table 4-comments:Piston term was removed?

[Yes]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors.

I marked my comments in the text.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments and Revisions

1. Hall et al comments: Link to the source ?

[Reference added]

2. Formality comments in relation to Fig #

[Tidy up and changed into “Fig. #”]

3. Table 3 comments: Optical cement-It is not specified where it is used. To fix the mirror and nesting ?

[Revised “optical cement” into “optical adhesive” to be more clear. Yes, the adhesive is used to fix the mirror and nesting]

4. Table 5 comments: The introduction defines that : The object of this paper is the secondary mirror .... In table we noted main mirror. Could you clarify ?

[Revised the main mirror to secondary mirror to be consistent. Sorry for the confusion caused]

5. Table 6 comments: The mirror has a rectangular shape. Distortions under the force of gravity should be different in the X and Y directions. The distribution maps should be different. They are the same in both directions. Can you explain ?

[False analysis results had been linked in the paper, revised with the correct one.]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Necessary suggestions/edits/updates in highlighted areas within the relevant file are stated in detail for the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general, it can be considered as a work written in an understandable and fluent style. It would be useful to review it briefly for some minor grammatical corrections.

Author Response

Comments and Revisions

1. Comments in relation to formality

[Tidy up the formalities and highlighted]

2. Fig 6 comments: Dimensioned technical drawing format should also be added.

[Added in the revised Fig-6]

3. Fig 7 comments: By adding an additional paragraph or subsection; The mesh type used in the study, mesh dimensions, why this mesh element was chosen, and the effects of the mesh process on the analysis results should be evaluated in detail and presented. This is really important!

[Added below wording to detail the process of Finite element simulation analysis

Finite element simulation analysis discretizes physical problems into mesh elements for computer to conduct numerical calculation and simulation. Tetrahedral mesh and hexahedral mesh are two commonly used mesh types when creating finite element simulation models, each targeting different physical shapes. The hexahedral mesh is composed of hexahedral elements, with each hexahedron consists of six rectangular faces. Hexahedral meshes are more effective in handling models with regular geometric shapes, as they can better approach to the shapes of cubes and rectangles. A tetrahedral mesh is composed of tetrahedral elements, with each tetrahedron surrounded by four triangular faces. Tetrahedral meshes have flexibility in handling complex shapes and boundary conditions, making them suitable for modeling complex geometric shapes. It can be well applied to surfaces and irregular shapes in three-dimensional space.

The reflector component model in this article belongs to an irregular and complex model. Based on the advantages and disadvantages of the tetrahedral and hexahedral meshes mentioned above, we choose tetrahedral meshes when building up the finite element simulation model, which can greatly save the time required for mesh partitioning.

]

4. Table 4 comments: Color measurement value scale should be added

[Added in the revised Table 4]

5. Fig 8 comments: The places described should be shown in detail by taking partial sections.

[Added in the revised Fig 8]