Parametric Optimisation Analysis of Micro/Nano-Satellite Flywheels Based on the NSGA-Ⅱ Optimisation Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
On the whole, the article is of interest. The introduction is not badly written. However, there are a number of serious flaws.
(a) Introduction
1. References in the text are labeled differently. Together with the text (e.g., lines 101 and 102), a common merged number 1314 line 105. As I understand it, this means two references to 13 and 14. Also in square brackets is line 108.
2. You write: "The optimal design parameter combination can be selected according to the actual situation." Please explain with specific examples. (lines 120-121)
3. You write: "In order to scientifically reduce the number of complex and time-consuming simulation calculations to a certain extent, the agent model technology was developed and improved, and it is gradually applied to the actual complex engineering optimisation in various fields as a research hotspot." (lines 135-138) Add references to works where this is explored.
(b) 2. Theory
4. It seems that the first paragraph of subsection 2.1. was copied from the article design template and was not subsequently deleted (lines 157-163).
5. You write: "Taking the zero-momentum control system as an example, we have the following:" (lines 173-174). Cite references to studies of this.
6. In the caption to Figure 1, decipher the symbols in the figure or provide a link to the research that gives the decipherment.
7. You write: "Satellite pose dynamics model of the three-orthogonal flywheel:" (line 177). Provide a link to the source with the formula used.
8. You speak of several flywheels. But the summation sign is missing in formula (1). Or are you only counting one flywheel?
9. You write: "The real flywheel mathematical model based on rotational speed control is non-linear. After linearisation, the simplified model is as follows:" (lines 196-197). Add a link to the paper where this was obtained.
10. In the transcript of formula (4) line 200: you write "Ke". But formula (4) has K2, but Ke does not.
11. When describing subsection 2.2, you need references to the literature.
12. Subsection 2.3 is written very sparingly. Explain in detail by whom and how the ranges of varying parameters are set at the initial optimization?
13. How are the variance intervals between the initial and final optimization set?
14. You write: "The specific optimisation steps of this paper are shown in the figure below." (line 269). However, Figure 4 is completely incomprehensible in places:
- why do three lines come out of the approximating model?
- What does Result1, Result2, Result3 and Result4 mean, and why are there 4?
- Why do the lines Result1 and Result4 merge, as well as Result2 and Result3?
- do all four results merge together or not?
Describe this not in the abstract words Result1, Result2, Result3, and Result4 , but as applied to your work, as you write in line 269.
15. Chapter 3 is written extremely and unacceptably sparingly.
16. You write: "For the typical working environment of flywheels in engineering applications, the rotational speed and angular acceleration application conditions of inertia discs in flywheel optimisation are determined (Table 2)" (lines 285-287). Who determined this? Give references to the works.
17. The quality of analysis is also low. In fact, the two numbers in Figures 6 and 11 are given. The analysis itself is reduced to stating the difference between these numbers. But these numbers cannot be universal. They refer to a specific case. What about other cases? This is a point-by-point analysis. It doesn't give the whole picture.
Thus, the article needs an extremely substantial revision. After that, it should be thoroughly analyzed again in order to decide whether to publish it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present an optimization methodology for the flywheel design in micro/nano satellites. The paper is well written although there are some minor improvements that can be implemented to improve the quality of the paper.
The reference numbers appear as numbers after end of sentences, which is not the most standard approach. Figures (most of them) are used without any clear reference in the text (e.g. Fig 1 is introduced as part of the text). After formulas, the next line (when in the same sentence) should not be indented.
There are some references missing, i.e. whenever an author is cited by his name, a reference to a paper/document should be included next to the name -- and that is not always the case.
Paragraph from line 157 should be removed. Overall, a careful text revision needs to be considered (e.g. typo in line 302).
Regarding the results, some additional information about computation efforts should be mentioned (computation time, type of workstation used). Although it might difficult to compare with other works, a brief reference would be interesting to reinforce the novelty of the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done quite a lot of work to eliminate the comments. I believe that the article can be published in a corrected form.
