Analysis of Comprehensive Multi-Factors on Station Selection for Moon-Based Earth Observation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Authors have dealt with issues that I identified in the first review. Thanks.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the patience to read my manuscript and give pertinent amendments. The revised manuscript has the English language usage checked and Partial Structure revised according to another referee, the modified part in the manuscript is colored in blue.

Thank you again for reading my manuscript.

Sincerely look forward to your reply.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors response the review comments and suggestions with very simple explanations. It is difficult for me to relate the response and the revised part of the manuscript. Therefore, the authors should make further modification of the manuscript and response the comments again in detail.

For example.

Q3. The title of Figure 3. is wrongly marked. "mean time coverage of sunlight (d)" should be "mean time coverage of sunlight (b)".

Answer: The title has now been revised.

But I can’t find Figure 3 in the revised manuscript has sub-images. They should also give out the sequence number in the revised manuscript or should express clearly whether the figures are reserved or deleted. In fact, I find Figure 3 in the primary manuscript is deleted in the revised manuscript. And some figures positions and numbers are changed. However, the authors didn’t show me the information clearly and directly. Therefore, the details of the revisions to the manuscript and your responses to the referees’ comments should be given point by point.

   Furthermore, according to the comments previously, I still have some confusion about the paper.

1. Followed Q1 in the previous comment, the higher DEM’s resolution is convenient for MBSEO. However, how to determine the needed accuracy? You say 50m is sufficient for MBSEO, how to prove the conclusion? With simulation or previous references? I can’t find some evidence to support the authors’ viewpoint.

 

2. Followed Q2, I am confused about the “far side” investigation in the munascript. Please give more explanation.

 

3. The corresponding relationship between the image serial numbers before and after modification needs to be given in the response.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your patience to read my manuscript again and give helpful suggestions. We are sorry to confuse you in our last ‘brief’ response, and will give explanations as detailed as we can. Language editing of the full text is made, especially in the Abstract and Introduction. The modified part in the manuscript is colored in blue.

Compared with the original manuscript, the order of chapters in the last revision has changed.

The section 2 in first version is “Topography of near side”, the section 2 in newest version is “Time coverage without topography”; the section 3 in first version is “Time coverage without topography”, the section 3 in newest version is “Topography of the Moon”.

In the newest reversion, a reference (Guo, H.D.; Ding, Y.X.; Guang, L., Moon-based Earth observation. Science Bulletin. 2022, DOI:10.1016/j.scib.2022.08.014) is added as reference [3], and the number of other references has also changed. The answers to reviewer’s questions are explained below:

Q1. How about the DEM's resolution effect on MBSEO? Is 50m sufficient for MBSEO? for example, the slopes calculation?. The question also exist in this review forum.

Answer: (1). The DEM data used then was download from Lunar And Planetary Data Release System https://moon.bao.ac.cn/ce5web/moonGisMap.search, the data set contains 50m resolution. If data of smaller resolution is used, the computational cost will be increased, especially for the long time (e.g. 18.6 year) situation.

(2). The analyzed areas chosen almost centered on corresponding center point of craters, and the radii of craters ranges from more than 5km to about 50km. Normally, most craters’ bottom are relatively flat except for rocks, much smaller craters inside, and corresponding edge. According to craters’ statistical information from https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/, depth of these smaller craters and bigger one are of little difference.

(3). Among some references, according to section 2.1. data of literature (i.e., Mazarico, E.; Neumann, G.A.; Smith, D.E.; Zuber, M.T.; Torrence, M.H., Illumination conditions of the lunar polar regions using LOLA topography. 2011, 211(2), 1066–1081. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.10.030), the author says “The results presented below show that a resolution of 240 m is sufficient to reproduce actual lighting conditions accurately enough for long-timescale studies to be conducted”; in section 4. Permanently shadowed regions, the author says “In the north pole region, the 844 km2 value of Noda et al. (2008) could be reconciled by our improved resolution of the topographic model (240 m vs. 470 m), enabling PSRs 10 km2 and smaller to be characterized”.

In the section 2. Data Used and Calculation Setup of literature (i.e., Noda, H.; Araki, H.; Goossens, S.; Ishihara, Y.; Matsumoto, K.; Tazawa, S.; Kawano, N.; Sasaki, S. Illumination conditions at the lunar polar regions by KAGUYA (SELENE) laser altimeter. Geophysical Research Letters, 2008, 35(24), L24203– doi:10.1029/2008gl035692), the author says “At first we selected data above latitude of 85 degrees at north and south polar regions, which are gridded by the nearest neighbor method within a 15 km search radius with weight proportional to the distance from the search center so that each bin dimension becomes 470 m by 470 m square at 85 degree latitude, which corresponds to 1/64 degree resolution in latitudinal direction”.

In the section 2.3. Preliminary results of literature (i.e., Rosa, D.D.; Bussey, B.; Cahill, J.T.; Lutz, T.; Crawford, I.A.; Hackwill, T.; Gasselt, S.V.; Neukum, G.; Witte, L.; McGovern, A.; Grindrod, P.M.; Carpenter, J.D., Characterisation of potential landing sites for the European Space Agency's Lunar Lander project, 2012, 74(1), doi:10.1016/j.pss.2012.08.002), the author says “The resolution of the input terrain maps and consequently the spacing of the analysed points within each RoI were selected based on the analysis of Section 2.2, which translates into a map resolution of 40 m for the sites within 21 of latitude from the pole and a resolution of 80 m for remainder of the sites.”.

Through the above reference and reasons (1)~(2), the 240m resolution data is sufficient for illumination, so the 50m resolution is also sufficient (compare to above 240m resolution) to be used to calculate illumination and sites selection in a long time of 18.6-years. The above 3 reference are added as reference [31~33], their number in main text and reference are also modified.

Q2. Is the "far side" in the manuscript the back of the moon? If so, I don't think it is necessary for the authors to analyze the probability for MBSEO. Because of tidal locking, the far side is always back to the earth. A similar question also exist in this review forum.

Answer: In the paper, the Moon topography is firstly introduced to have the near side (the side always face to Earth) better analyzed latter (the analyzed area is from large to small, i.e., from full-moon area, to near side, and last to specific crater), therefor introduction of the far side (the side cannot see Earth) is just to highlight the near side. Though the far side might not suitable for Earth observation, the side is still suitable for other astronomical (the near-earth asteroid, the outer solar system) observations. The introduction of the far side is also short.

Q3. The title of Figure 3 is wrongly marked. "mean time coverage of sunlight (d)" should be "mean time coverage of sunlight (b)". A similar question also exist in this review forum.

Answer: The original Figure 3 becomes the Figure 1 in revised version, and its corresponding title has been revised into "mean time coverage of sunlight (b)".

Q4. The citation of Figure 4 and Figure 5 in the context should be coincide with the sequence of their appearance in the manuscript.

Answer: The original Figure 4 becomes the Figure 3 in revised version; the original Figure 5 becomes the Figure 4 in revised version, the first citation of the two figures all appear in front of the figures.

Q5. The font size of the title of Figure 4 should be revised.

Answer: The original Figure 4 becomes the Figure 3 in revised version, and the font size is changed from 8 to 13.

Q5. The subtitle of (a) and (b) in Figure 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 should be revised.

Answer: The original Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 become the Figure 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in revised version, and the titles are revised as following.

[1] In original Figure 6, the title is “The relation diagram between the three factors and their memberships (a), and diagram of the MISO fuzzy controller (b)”.

In revised Figure 7, the title is “The diagram of (a) relation between the three factors and their memberships, and (b) the MISO fuzzy controller”.

[2] In original Figure 7, the title is “The maximum comprehensive evaluation output in different maximum tolerable sunlight, i.e. 0.01 (a), 0.2 (b)”.

In revised Figure 8, the title is “The maximum comprehensive evaluation output in different value, i.e. (a) 0.01 and (b) 0.2, of maximum tolerable sunlight”.

[3] In original Figure 8, the title is “The maximum comprehensive evaluation output in different optimal and maximum tolerable sunlight, i.e., 0.01 and 0.02 (a), 0.1 and 0.2 (b)”.

In revised Figure 9, the title is “The maximum comprehensive evaluation output in values, i.e., (a) 0.01 and 0.02 and (b) 0.1 and 0.2, of different optimal and maximum tolerable sunlight”.

[4] In original Figure 9, the title is “The parameter of DEM (a), slope (b), permanent shadow area (c) and slope constraint (d) of partial area centered in Malapert A”.

In revised Figure 10, the title is “The distribution of (a) DEM, (b) slope, (c) permanent shadow area and (d) area with slope constraint of partial area centered in Malapert A”.

[5] In original Figure 10, the title is “The comprehensive evaluation output for partial area centered in Malapert A for TA with 1 times of Earth radius in two situations, (a) maximum tolerable sunlight of 0.2, and (b) optimal sunlight 0.1 and maximum tolerable sunlight of 0.2”.

In revised Figure 11, the title is “The selected area is Malapert A shows in Figure 10 and corresponding TA is 1 times of Earth radius, the two scenario are (a) maximum tolerable sunlight of 0.2, and (b) optimal sunlight 0.1 and maximum tolerable sunlight of 0.2”.

Q6. The figures, such as Figure 6, 7, 8 etc., should be replaced with higher quality. I cannot clearly see the text in the figures.

Answer: The original Figures 6, 7, 8 become the Figure 7, 8, 9 in revised version, the font size in newly Figure 7 has been revised (from 8 to 13). The font size of newly Figure 7 and newly Figure 8 have also been revised (from 8 to 18 or 16).

Q7. The format of references should be revised according to the demand of Remote Sensing. It is important for publication.

Answer: According to template, the reference has now been partly revised.

Thank you for reading my manuscript again.

Sincerely look forward to your reply.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The comments and suggestions are responsed in detail, I have no further questions.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper focus on the Moon-based station for earth observation, it is a novel ideal for  earth observation. Compared to the existed research,

the paper investigate three key factors affect MBSEO, I think it is valuable for the future work. 

However, some comments and improvements of the paper are given below for paper revision and publication. 

 

1. How about the DEM's resolution effect on MBSEO? Is 50m sufficient for MBSEO? for example, the slopes calculation?

 

2. Is the "far side" in the manuscript the back of the moon? If so, I don't think it is necessary for the authors to analyze the probablity for MBSEO.

    Because of tidal locking, the far side is always back to the earth.

 

3. The title of Figure 3. is wrongly marked. "mean time coverage of sunlight (d)" should be "mean time coverage of sunlight (b)"

 

4. The citation of Figure 4 and Figure 5 in the context should be coincide with the sequence of their appearance in the manuscript.

 

5. The font size of the title of Figure 4 should be revised.

 

6. The subtitle of (a) and (b) etc in Figure 6,7,8,9,10 should be revised.

 

7. The format of references should be revised according to the demand of Remote Sensing. It is important for publication.

 

8. The figures, such as Figure 6,7,8 etc, should be replaced with higher quality. I cannot clearly see the text in the figures.

 

etc. I cannot list the format of the paper that should be carefully revised according to Remote Sensing' template.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors,

I believe that there is scientific merit to your work but the presentation is so poor as to mask the interpretation of your work. This paper needs to be rewritten and reorganized before it is resubmitted. Please also check the English language usage. There are many poorly written sentences that are confusing and misleading or in some cases uninterpretable.

My critique and suggestions for the first part of the paper follow. I was unable to follow the entire line of reasoning and interpretations so I stopped at a point before the interpretations. 

Please rethink the paper organization and rewrite before any submittal.

 

Abstract and paper are poorly written with many hanging statements and undefined numbers and terminology especially in the abstract.

For example see underlined items below which appear in the abstract but which are undefined or which are poorly written;

“By using the proposed evaluation method, the sites near dividing line, e.g.,

Amundsen, can still have absolute possibility of exceeding 0.6 that was selected as MBSEO in low

acceptability of sunlight.”

 

Not certain if I can agree with this statement;

“Previous researchers have revealed that MBSEO can provide many advantages (e.g., higher stability, longer cycle, wider range, better integrity and consistency) over satellites, in not only observing geography phenomena, such as the solid Earth tide, global energy budget, climate and environmental change, but also for the near-earth space environment [11,12].”

since multiple earth observing satellites have been doing this at higher resolution for decades in some cases.

What is meant by?

“Since the widely distributed Helium provides huge power for MBSEO [21], the sunlight is not as bigger as better.”

Figure 1 should not use same color schema for a) elevation and b) slope. Confusing.

In addition, the source of the DEM data is not provided. So source, resolution (vertical and horizontal, datum, error (vertical) etc. of this data needs to be added.

Most of the discussion on slope that follows is already well known. Please review the literature and use it to support your statistics.

Figure 2 has far too much information in it. Symbols are difficult to distinguish. Why have you used slope as your basemap?

What is the source of your crater distribution map? Again, many possible sources yet none is listed.

In the following paragraphs, you are mixing analysis with introductory material.

3. Time coverage without topography section.

Remove the influence of the Moon’s DEM???? No you are removing the influence of elevation.

In figure 3b there is unusual banding in the plot – which does not make sense. Please explain. In addition, your color bars for figures 3a and b need explanation. Also for 3b the range of values is from 0.501 to 0.498. A tiny variation. I’m not certain why this is important.

 

You refer to figure 5 and the follow with a discussion of figure 4. This is out of order. Please fix.