Preliminary Safety Analysis of Megaconstellations in Low Earth Orbit: Assessing Short-Term and Long-Term Collision Risks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Report on the manuscript

 

Title: Preliminary Safety Analysis of Mega Constellations in Low Earth Orbit: Assessing Short-term and Long-term Collision Risks

 

Authors: Yongjing Ruan , Min Hu * , Chaoming Yun , Wen Xue

 

Manuscript ID: applsci-2882139

 

This is an interesting work, and the model and methods they developed are very solid. Hence, I suggest publishing this paper. However, some major issues should be addressed before publishing.

 

1. The authors was studies novel approach to improve the measurement accuracy of angular rate during spacecraft  rotation.  If it is possible, the authors could give some results compared with other previous literature in order to show the generality of their methods. If not, some discussion could also be added.

 

2. The results appear to be marginal to the field of scientific research considered.

 

3. The section Conclusions will be point out the original results of the paper and can be extended to highlight the contributions. Please provide a clear justification for your work in this section, and indicate uses and extensions if appropriate.

4.  I think the author need to emphasize more clearly the contribution of the manuscript from a scientific point of view. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please check if you have a pre print versio of your work stored somewhere else in the internet. Seems that you  were copying the contents another work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the issue of possible collisions between low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites and describes a model for evaluating the short-term and long-term collision probabilities and assessing the collision risk.

The main novelty of the work is the proposed model for the assessment of collision risk (particularly long term collision risk) that could provide a reference for the analysis of the orbital safety of LEO mega constellations.

The content of the article is within the scope of the Journal.  

The article provides a sound mathematical analysis and a fair amount of simulation results. A summary of those results is in the last paragraphs of section 3 (lines 670-683).

Conclusions are in accordance with the derived results and include suggestions for further study.

Specific comments

Since probability, as a quantity takes values between 0 and 1, I would suggest the term “probability” to be replaced by a term such a “frequency” in all cases that refer to number of occurrences (e.g. in the legend of fig. 13 and table 3, lines 670-671 etc).

Review decision

I consider the article publishable subject to the authors making the revisions above.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article is generally well written, so regarding the use of English a moderate editing would be sufficient.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents models to assess both short-term and long-term collision probabilities of mega constellations in low Earth orbit (LEO), highlighting significant risks posed by space debris. Simulations on the Starlink Phase I constellation indicate a substantial increase in collision probability within the constellation, with a high likelihood of collision during its lifetime, emphasizing the importance of analyzing orbital safety for the sustainable development of LEO mega constellations. This research is of significance. The methods are clearly described and the results are well presented. Therefore, I recommend its acceptance.

 

The citations, tables and charts are all good. This manuscript is probably the best I have reviewed for a while.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have no more recommendations and concerns about your work.