Satellite-Assisted Disrupted Communications: IoT Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this work investigate the utility of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations as communication infrastructures in Internet of Things (IoT) scenarios for integrating "smart" objects via ground stations. My reviews are included below.

 

1. Increase the size of the introductory section and include references in it.

2. Include a general diagram in the introduction part for a better understanding of the readers.

3. In the Related Work section, a table of literature review must be provided.

4. Redraw the “Figure 1. Significant variables in ground–to–sat-satellite communication” and make it clearer.

5. What is assumed the satellites' altitude and elevation angle

6. In the experimentation parameters section, the system parameters for simulations must be referenced.

7. In the conclusion, explicitly define the system constraints.

 

8. Before the conclusion, add one paragraph demonstrating the findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article systematically investigates the performance of LEO satellite networks in IoT applications under the OMNeT++ simulation environment. The experimental design is reasonable and the results analysis is in-depth, yet there are some areas worth improving:

1. The introduction clearly provides the background of the importance of satellite technology in modern applications. However, the transition from the general importance of satellite services to the specific focus of the study could be smoother. The author might consider adding a sentence to bridge the gap between the wide application of satellite technology and the specific aspect involved in the study.

2. No literature is cited in the introduction section. Necessary references should be provided for some general conclusions and background.

3. When mentioning some technologies or protocols for the first time in the text, their full names should be given to ensure that readers can understand the article (TCP, IPv4, IPv6，OSPFv4， SDN, NDN, ICN ，AODV，UAV，FANETs,ISL).

4. In the article, after giving an abbreviation, it is unnecessary to repeatedly give the full name and abbreviation (WSN, LEO, RTT, DTN), the abbreviation can be used directly.

5. The article compares the referenced literature with the current study in the related work, but a more in-depth comparison should be made to highlight the innovativeness of this study.

6. The clarity and size of Figure 1 are suggested to be modified to improve readability. The same goes for Figures 2 and 3.

7. The text points out that Re refers to the radius of the earth, but the range marked in Figure 1 is not the radius of the earth.

8. Equation (7) can finally derive the expression of h, which is more intuitive to substitute into Equation (8).

9. A brief explanation can be given as to why the OS3 model was chosen.

10. Briefly explain why the second method of the OS3 model (Lines 230-237) was used.

11. In line 223, "0.62" and Table 1 have decimal point writing errors. Such problems also exist in Section 5.

12. What do the positive and negative values of the coordinates in Table 4 represent? Are they related to longitude and latitude?

13. Why were specific numbers of satellites (360 and 600) chosen in Scenario 1?

14. The author should discuss any limitations or trade-offs of the chosen scenarios and methods in Section 4 or Section 6. For example, are there any limitations to using real sensor data from the Smart Santander test bed?

15. The article points out that inter-satellite links increase the cost and complexity of satellites, but does not analyze these factors specifically. This issue can be pointed out in future work or the limitations and deficiencies of this study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language used in this paper is quite good and only some minor mistakes are needed to be modified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The improvements noted in the revised manuscript suggest that the author has undertaken a responsible and thorough revision in response to each feedback received. Specifically, the author refined the introduction based on the suggestions, making the argument more clear and fluid, and included more references for support. This will help readers to better understand the context and focal points of this study. The author optimized the description in the experimental design section, made adjustments to image sizes and annotations, and replaced some images, hence achieving a better fit between the images and the method description. The author also provided explanations on the study limitations and future work, indicating the overall direction in which the research is advancing. The author meticulously addressed minor issues with tables and textual content.

In summary, through these amendments, the author further improved and enriched the research content. The structure of the revised paper is more logical and fluid, the arguments are more detailed and clear, and the overall quality of the paper has been significantly enhanced.