Comparison of Optimization Methods for the Attitude Control of Satellites
, Álvaro Bello 2, José Javier Fernández 2 and Victoria Lapuerta 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSatellite position control is a very important and very current issue. Performing simulation calculations for the European Space Agency allows for research and development of European solutions that are competitive with American, Russian and Asian ones.
The literature analysis was conducted in an appropriate manner. The selected methods were properly described in the article and using references to literature sources. The analysis used terms and phrases appropriate for describing control theory.
The simulation studies were planned and performed in an appropriate manner. The appropriate simulation tools were used in the form of Matlab software with appropriate libraries. The description of the libraries once made in them by the authors of the modifications was very well described.
The research results were presented in the form of graphs and analyzed. The appropriate conclusions were drawn. Directions for future work in this area were given.
Before publication, the authors should take into account the following recommendations and make corrections to the text of the article:
1) The Abstract is too short and its content does not fully reflect the content of the article. The Abstract should be expanded by a few sentences and modified.
2) Due to the publication in the MDPI Electronics publishing house, both in the Introduction and Materials and Methods, a few sentences should be written about the current use of electronics and computer science (or mechatronics, if you prefer) in space solutions in general, and in the construction and control of satellites in particular.
3) Figures 4, 5 and 6. The drawings are in too low a resolution and are illegible. They should be replaced with drawings of higher resolution. Alternatively, check whether the resolution has not been lost as a result of incorrect conversion of the original format of the article to PDF format.
4) It is worth using the presentation of research results in the form of 3D graphs in 3.2. Optimization results, as in the figure below. Learning and using new functions for presenting measurement, simulation and research results data can be very important for young members of the research team. There are many examples of effective and impressive data presentation on the Internet (see https://www.mathworks.com/help/gads/plot-3-d-pareto-set.html).
5) Figures 5 and 6 present data in the form of time series. It is worth supplementing the comparison of research results of 3 algorithms based on processed measurement data.
6) The article lacks Chapter 5 Conclusions. This chapter should contain the most important conclusions resulting from Chapter 4 Discussion and the practical application of the obtained research results as well as future directions of conducting the initiated research.
7) The list of literature contains only 26 items. It contains many articles published before 2010. The analysis of literature should be extended to at least 10 sources in the form of the latest articles that are not older than 3 years.
8) The literature in the list of literature has not been formatted in accordance with the publisher's requirements.
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 AuthorsOverall comment:
This paper studies the initial calibration of an attitude controller based on fuzzy logic, with the purpose of performing an initial exploration of optimal regions of the design space. The paper compared different optimization methods for solving such a problem.
Comment 1:
Please include your finding from the comparison in the abstract. Currently, the abstract is too brief, only told the reader about what you did but not what you discovered.
Comment 2:
What is the main motivation for the authors to compare different optimization methods?
Comment 3:
Quoted: “This issue is particularly pronounced in the case of nanosatellites, as their small size limits the available energy”.
Comment: any possibility to cite a source of references to nanosatellites.
Comment 4:
Why fuzzy controller is the best among other two?
Need a little bit more justification. To me, the other two are linear or non-linear. In the literature, a very simple controller based on the so-called dynamic pole concept was proposed; see ‘Song, K.-Y.; et al.; A Dynamic Pole Motion Approach for Control of Nonlinear Hybrid Soft Legs: A Preliminary Study. Machines 2022, 10, 875.’. Is it possible to compare your fuzzy logics control with that one, because I think that one is perhaps better in terms of simplicity?
Comment 5:
When you choose PSO algorithms, you need to make sure the state-of-the-art (SOTA) PSO is chosen. Please comment on this point. You may also do a more comprehensive literature study on PSO, e.g., some review papers on PSO, e.g., Jain, M.; Saihjpal, V.; Singh, N.; Singh, S.B. An Overview of Variants and Advancements of PSO Algorithm. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8392. and other papers that represent the SOTA. Like ‘Predatory Search Strategy Based on Swarm Intelligence for Continuous Optimization Problems’.
Comment 6:
Please explain why the physical experiment to test the finding is not performed.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagegood.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of Comparison of optimization methods for the attitude control of 2 satellites:
This manuscript offers a contribution to the field of satellite attitude control optimization, with future implications mentioned. It provides an analysis of methods and attempts to provide future applications in the aerospace industry. Though interesting, the paper needs complete revision or writing of the whole manuscript before it can be accepted in a Journal.
Major Comments:
The abstract is very brief, not clear, and hard to understand.
Not clear how this is novel and how different from GA and PSO was not clearly highlighted or hard to follow. Suggesting to restructure the paper, avoid complex sentences whenever you explain in the texts. Very few articles were cited and introduced in the introduction section, which suggests most of the facts presented in this paper are not corroborated with relevant literature; consider reviewing articles that can support your facts in the introduction section.
The paper appears as direct application to OPS-SAT and why this is chosen, why not the same optimization methods be applied to different class of satellites, and why and what are the limitations. Please indicate the research drivers and how they are achieved in this paper.
Highlight the novelty and contribution of this study, which is not clear to the reviewer.
2.1 OPS-SAT Scenery: Include more details on simulation set up, limitations, assumptions and initial conditions and how they are found, and justify with relevant resources.
2.2 Fuzzy Control Design: What is the rationale for choosing fuzzy logic controllers over the other potential controllers like PID and LQR in the same context of attitude control, and cite relevant papers to support your findings and justifications.
2.3 Optimization Algorithms: Could be explained better and made concise to focus on impactful changes rather than explaining what they are, and they are not new to the field, please provide reasoning behind the selection of these methods.
3. Results: Presented results are more dense and could be made reader-friendly. Please revise this section accordingly. Include more interpretation and discussion of the figures to help readers to understand the results presented.
4. Discussions: Try linking your findings to broader applications in optimization and control theory.
Missing conclusions, please add them
Most of the sentences are complex and hard to follow; please consider revising the text throughout.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI suggest that the authors put part of rebuttal and discussion in responding to the reviewer’s comments in the manuscript, for example as a future work.
First, in my comment, I mentioned the concept of dynamic pole and its technique. The dynamic pool is a concept that is associated with neurons or fuzzy neurons. That means one can develop a fuzzy neuron controller incorporating the dynamic pole, see for example the literature, the one I mentioned in my comment as well as the one below.
K. -Y. Song, M. M. Gupta, D. Jena and B. Subudhi, "Design of a robust neuro-controller for complex dynamic systems," NAFIPS 2009 - 2009 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2009, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/NAFIPS.2009.5156405.
Second, regarding different PSO, please notice that use of PSO and solve the multi-objective optimization problem are two separate issues. The latter is solved with the concept of Pareto set or front, but PSO is to find the Pareto set. The PSO is the key. The trade-off between the convergence and speed of convergence is the key issue, and this can be taken as a future work by applying the literature to your problem, e.g., the literature ‘Predatory Search Strategy Based on Swarm Intelligence for Continuous Optimization Problems
Otherwise, the contribution of the paper seems to be insufficient.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagegood.
Author Response
Comments 1:
I suggest that the authors put part of rebuttal and discussion in responding to the reviewer’s comments in the manuscript, for example as a future work.
First, in my comment, I mentioned the concept of dynamic pole and its technique. The dynamic pool is a concept that is associated with neurons or fuzzy neurons. That means one can develop a fuzzy neuron controller incorporating the dynamic pole, see for example the literature, the one I mentioned in my comment as well as the one below.
- -Y. Song, M. M. Gupta, D. Jena and B. Subudhi, "Design of a robust neuro-controller for complex dynamic systems," NAFIPS 2009 - 2009 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2009, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/NAFIPS.2009.5156405.
Second, regarding different PSO, please notice that use of PSO and solve the multi-objective optimization problem are two separate issues. The latter is solved with the concept of Pareto set or front, but PSO is to find the Pareto set. The PSO is the key. The trade-off between the convergence and speed of convergence is the key issue, and this can be taken as a future work by applying the literature to your problem, e.g., the literature ‘Predatory Search Strategy Based on Swarm Intelligence for Continuous Optimization Problems
Otherwise, the contribution of the paper seems to be insufficient.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. We deeply regret not having included them as they were beyond the scope of this work, but as you mentioned, they are perfect for future work, which we have included in section 5 Conclusions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of Revised version of Comparison of optimization methods for the attitude control of 2 satellites
I appreciate the author's efforts in revising the article based on the comments and reflecting them on the revised manuscript. This is now can be accepted in the current form in the Electronics journal.
Author Response
Comment 1: I appreciate the author's efforts in revising the article based on the comments and reflecting them on the revised manuscript. This is now can be accepted in the current form in the Electronics journal.
Response 1: We would like to express our most sincere gratitude for your feedback, which has allowed us to improve our work.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am satisfied with the revision.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagegood.
