Synthetic Deviation Correction Method for Tracking Satellite of the SOTM Antenna on High Maneuverability Carriers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a new algorithm to track satellites from a moving carrier. The topic is interesting as mobile communications are now everywhere. However, I have a main concern with this paper. In particular, the authors use the term “high maneuvering conditions” throughout the paper without defining it. Proper quantification of this term is required and the results need to be discussed in that context. While the term is fine for the introduction and then referring to it, for the technical discussion it is essential to be defined. Furthermore, the limitation of their approach needs to be discussed. How large maneuvering can be applied so that the tracking would still work? How do you define maneuvering? What about a rough sea for ships, or a road full of potholes? Those are very rapid acceleration and deceleration in a given direction. Are those affect your tracking ability? How do they compare to your definition of “high maneuvering”?
My additional comments to the authors are the following:
1; The title of the paper is very long and does not sound too interesting. A shorter title would be a much better approach.
2; The English wording and styling are very poor. For this reason, there are hard-to-follow sentences and paragraphs. E. g. line 33-40, 58-62.
3; References are missing from section 1. E. g. after the sentences in lines: 36, 40, 86, and 88.
4; Why do size and weight matter for ground stations? Line 42-44.
5; Why do you use quotation marks for Satellite Communication …. in lines 44, 46, etc.
6; The usage of quantity and unit throughout the text is inconsistent. Please add a space between the quantity and the unit. E. g. line 116.
7; It is really hard to follow the section between lines 168-177. The text jumps back and forth between the SOTM side and the ground station side.
8; Please use the same terms in the section between lines 180 and198 as in Fig. 2. E.g. main controller vs. core controller.
9; Define GNSS in line 187.
10; Are lines 234, 251, 267, 280, 291 subsections?
11; Add some labels to Fig. 7.
12; How does Fig. 8 show that communication to SOTM is normal? I can only see an antenna and a partial screen of a laptop.
13; Line 412-413 about the description of the motion of the plates: How far do you move the plates in terms of length or angle? This comment is related to my concern as to how you define the high maneuvering state.
14; Discuss the limitations of your algorithm in the context of some figure of merits.
Author Response
(Reviewer 1)
The authors present a new algorithm to track satellites from a moving carrier. The topic is interesting as mobile communications are now everywhere. However, I have a main concern with this paper. In particular, the authors use the term “high maneuvering conditions” throughout the paper without defining it. Proper quantification of this term is required and the results need to be discussed in that context. While the term is fine for the introduction and then referring to it, for the technical discussion it is essential to be defined. Furthermore, the limitation of their approach needs to be discussed. How large maneuvering can be applied so that the tracking would still work? How do you define maneuvering? What about a rough sea for ships, or a road full of potholes? Those are very rapid acceleration and deceleration in a given direction. Are those affect your tracking ability? How do they compare to your definition of “high maneuvering”?
My additional comments to the authors are the following:
1; The title of the paper is very long and does not sound too interesting. A shorter title would be a much better approach.
“Research on” is deleted, “Satcom-On-The-Move” is replaced with the abbreviation “SOTM”. We think “High Maneuverability Carriers” and “Tracking Satellite” is essential for this paper, the revised title is “Synthetic Deviation Correction Method for Tracking Satellite of the SOTM Antenna on High Maneuverability Carriers”. Thank you for your advice, we think the short title is better.
2; The English wording and styling are very poor. For this reason, there are hard-to-follow sentences and paragraphs. E. g. line 33-40, 58-62.
We have revise the English expression in the paper.
3; References are missing from section 1. E. g. after the sentences in lines: 36, 40, 86, and 88.
We have added some references in lines 36, 40, 86, 88, and other parts of the paper.
4; Why do size and weight matter for ground stations? Line 42-44.
It is the “ground satellite receiving equipment”, but not the “ground station”. Here, the ground satellite receiving equipment is generally the antenna. A description has been added where ground satellite receiving equipment first appeared, and it has also been modified here.
5; Why do you use quotation marks for Satellite Communication …. in lines 44, 46, etc.
We want to highlight the “SOTM” that appears later, from your comments, we realize that we can use “SCAS (the abbreviation of “Satellite Communication Antenna in Static”)” to denote “Satellite Communication Antenna in Static” in this paper, we added the description where “SCAS” first appears, and other “Satellite Communication Antenna in Static” is replaced by “SCAS”.
6; The usage of quantity and unit throughout the text is inconsistent. Please add a space between the quantity and the unit. E. g. line 116.
We have revised this problem in the paper, thank you for your comment.
7; It is really hard to follow the section between lines 168-177. The text jumps back and forth between the SOTM side and the ground station side.
The description in this section has been rewritten.
8; Please use the same terms in the section between lines 180 and198 as in Fig. 2. E.g. main controller vs. core controller.
The description in this section has been rewritten.
9; Define GNSS in line 187.
GNSS is the “Global Navigation Satellite System”, we added this expression at its first appearance.
10; Are lines 234, 251, 267, 280, 291 subsections?
They are not subsections, we have added a explanation at the beginning of Section 3.1
11; Add some labels to Fig. 7.
We have added the labels to Fig. 7.
12; How does Fig. 8 show that communication to SOTM is normal? I can only see an antenna and a partial screen of a laptop.
The size of the original photo (Fig. 8) is large, and we reduced the size of the image in the paper. We enlarged the computer screen in Fig. 8 and placed it on the right side of the figure.
13; Line 412-413 about the description of the motion of the plates: How far do you move the plates in terms of length or angle? This comment is related to my concern as to how you define the high maneuvering state.
At present, there is no public literature or research to define the high maneuverability carrier. From the test data of SATPRO M&C Tech Co., Ltd (a SOTM manufacturer), when the angular velocity of the carrier is greater than 30 degree/s, or the angular acceleration is greater than 40 degree/s2, there may be communication obstacle or communication interruption. In our experiments, the amplitude of the the angles of yaw, pitch, and roll run in a sinusoidal manner with a period of 3 s, and a amplitude of 15 degree, the maximum angular velocity is 31.4159 degree/s, and the maximum angular acceleration is 65.7974 degree/s2.
The distance from the GEO satellite to the carrier is greater than 35800 km, the sample and control period is normal 20 ms (or 50 Hz in frequency), during one period, the displacement of the carrier is much less than the distance from the satellite to the carrier, the high maneuverability of the location of the carrier has little impact of the SOTM, but the high maneuverability of the attitude of the carrier has a great impact of the SOTM. Meanwhile, from the engineering data, we focus on the high maneuverability of the attitude of the carrier, not the high maneuverability of the location of the carrier. We added the explanation in the paper.
14; Discuss the limitations of your algorithm in the context of some figure of merits.
We have added the discussion in Section 5.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The scale of fig 6 needs to be enlarged
2. line no 401 says that on the test site, the satellite is geosynchronous. in geosynchronous a fixed antenna terminal is the best choice, then how SOTM system is an advantage here? Kindly give an expalnation.
3. SOTM would be useful in upcoming broadband communication with LEO satellites, hence some literature review on LEO satellites is required.
4. references are not adequate.
Author Response
(Reviewer 2)
- The scale of fig 6 needs to be enlarged
The fig has been re-edited.
- line no 401 says that on the test site, the satellite is geosynchronous. in geosynchronous a fixed antenna terminal is the best choice, then how SOTM system is an advantage here? Kindly give an expalnation.
At the beginning of the satellite communication, the antenna is fixed. The fixed antenna method cannot establish a stable communication link with the satellite when the carrier is in motion. The SOTM can establish a stable communication link with the satellite when the carrier is in motion. It's the advantage of the SOTM system. We have re-explained this in Section 1.
- SOTM would be useful in upcoming broadband communication with LEO satellites, hence some literature review on LEO satellites is required.
From now on, the SOTM system with LEO satellite is a hotspot, because the LEO satellite can provide high speed data rate. But the SOTM system with GEO satellite is still important, the duration of an LEO satellite covering a specific location is short, and the SOTM needs to switch the target satellite continuously, which causes communication interruption, meanwhile, The data rate of SOTM system with GEO satellite is lower, but GEO satellite provides continuous and stable communication, it is important in lots of cases. We have added the literature review on SOTM with LEO satellite.
- references are not adequate.
We have added some references in the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors adequately responded to my comments. I think it can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
all the suggestions has been incorporated
