Autonomous Attitude Reconstruction Analysis for Propulsion System with Typical Thrust Drop Fault

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary:

This is a manuscript on the analysis of the impact and potential solutions of thrust drop fault, in the context of space launch vehicles. After studying the consequences on the ascending path due to such a failure via FMEA, authors simulate the dynamics of the system using Simulink, to validate the model under different circumstances.

 

Broad comments:

Strengths:

1. The research is focused on an interesting topic, key to guarantee not only the success of the missions, but also the life of the crew in many missions.
2. The ideas are well explained, and the paper is quite didactic.

Weaknesses:

1. The main problem is with regards validation: only numerical simulations by a single method do not provide proper validation.
2. Without a comparison with a different method, or validation, the research seems to be unfinished or incomplete.

Specific comments:

1. Major issues:
1. Deviation of 10^-7 for roll angle may fit in a simulation scenario but seems too precise for real environments.
2. Please, elaborate your results in the “Conclusion section”, including some results from your simulations. Sentences as the ones in lines 328-329 fit in the “Introduction section”, but not as conclusions of your research.
3. Please, create a proper “Future works” describing the next steps for this research, not just four lines at the end of the conclusions.

 

2. Minor issues:
1. Please, rewrite Figure 1’s caption; it might not be clear for every reader.
2. Please, fix the capital letters in table 1, and many others (line 198, 202, ..).
3. Please, explain s.t. in (12)
4. Please, consider using a native English professional translator to review the document, and a spell corrector: there are small typos and some sentences are difficult to read (line 185 and others).
5. Consider separating the “Introduction Section” from a “State of the Art Section”.
6. Consider including some relevant results from your research in the Abstract.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Some minor corrections must be done to the text, figures, and figure references. The references are completly appropiated to this topic, publication years are different. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider that the authors have taken the time and effort to improve the manuscript in the lines that were pointed in the previous review.

As for validation, they have included another example of a well-known case (CLMV); I agree that real fault injection is not easy to address, so a simulation with the F9 was added. 

The "Conclusions" and "Future works" sections were added. As well, the "Introduction" was separated from the "State of the art". 

Finally, all minor issues were fixed, so under my point of view, the manuscript can be considered ready for acceptance.