Next Article in Journal
Tunnel FET and MOSFET Hybrid Integrated 9T SRAM with Data-Aware Write Technique for Ultra-Low Power Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Reducing Hardware in LUT-Based Mealy FSMs with Encoded Collections of Outputs
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Demonstration of the Capability of 1U CubeSat for Measurement of the Energy Spectrum on LEO

Electronics 2022, 11(20), 3390; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11203390
by Pavel Kovář 1,*,†, Pavel Puričer 1,†, Eric Benton 2,† and Jan Mikeš 1,†
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Electronics 2022, 11(20), 3390; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11203390
Submission received: 30 September 2022 / Revised: 14 October 2022 / Accepted: 17 October 2022 / Published: 20 October 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, the capability of the 1U CubeSat to study the radiation spectra on LEO orbit has been demonstrated on the Lucky 7 satellite. The satellite is a 1U non-stabilized CubeSat designed as a testing platform for space research focused instruments and supporting technology. For this mission, the satellite is equipped with the piNAV GPS receiver and piDOSE radiation detector, silicon diode radiation spectrometer, camera, and other sensors. The on-board computer enables storage of 34-hours of measurements of the radiation spectrum. These measurements can be downloaded by the UHF communication system during four satellite passes over the monitoring ground station.

In conclusion: Some results obtained in this work are novel. Moreover, they are incremental improvements of earlier results. The level originality of these results makes them suitable for publication. The experts in this field of space technology will appreciate some technical progress exposed in this work. However, some minor comments

1.    The introduction should be rewritten to include a clear literature for space technology  

2.    The authors have to shed light on the similarities and differences among their work and the literatures of the problem.  A clear explanation, what is the new result in their work, and how it is build up upon previous work in the field.

3.    A lack of proper citations and the lack of reference to relevant work which may be excellent guide.

4.    The labels axes should be included  

5.    The translation of figures should be included properly 

6.    A conclusion section should be extended to include more details

In the light about the abovementioned criticisms, the authors should describe in more detail the purpose of study and its original contents.

If the authors submit a modified version according to my suggestions where they also give more details/explanations about the abovementioned criticisms, I could recommend the paper for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attachment for comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled "Demonstration of the Capability of 1U CubeSat for Measurement of the Energy Spectrum on LEO", does not show a clear contribution. The paper presents a study of the radiation spectra in LEO orbit that has been demonstrated on the satellite. If it is the case, this is not enough for this level. So, i will try to help the authors improve this work by some remarks:

1. Please clarify the contributions of this work in the abstract and in the introduction section. The authors claimed at the end of the introduction that ‘The paper investigates the requirements on such detectors and solves …’ What has been specifically extended, and why and how is it needed? Please provide more information and explanations.

2. Figure 1, mention the components of Lucky 7 CubeSat.

3. Section 2 must be largely extended, as the main objective of this paper is CubeSat. 

4. Figure 2, is very snowed. try with another concept.

5. Try to use more results.

6. You need to define a flowchart for expressing the objective. 

7. Try to present into the conclusion some summary of the paper objective.

8. The main contribution of this paper should be described in detail, do not just list the figure without the basic formula, deduction and calculation, do not just show the basic part of the circuit without showing the connecting details.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept as it is.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have responded adequately to my comments. The changes introduced have notably improved the quality of the manuscript. In my opinion, the work can be published in electronics. 

Back to TopTop