Moon Mapping Project Results on Solar Wind Ion Flux and Compositionâ€
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of manuscript
"Moon Mapping project results on Solar Wind ion flux and composition"
by Francesco Nozzoli and Pietro Richelli
The manuscript is a popular (without descriptions and details accepted in the scientific community) report illustrating the work with SWID instruments on the Chang'E-1 spacecraft in orbit around the Moon, and does not contain new scientific results. In this form, the manuscript cannot be published.
If the authors wish to publish their material as a scientific article, then it is necessary to add an extended methodological part with estimates of the accuracy of the measured parameters and new scientific results.
Perhaps authors will be able to change the manuscript type to "Communication". In this case, they should agree with the editors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1.
Thank you for reviewing this manuscript.
However we do not fully agree with your comment.
This manuscript is submitted to the "Selected Papers from the 1st International Electronic Conference on Universe (ECU 2021)".
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe/special_issues/ecu2021 and is describing in details the work presented to the ECU2021 conference.
The title of the manuscript is "Moon Mapping project results on Solar Wind ion flux and composition"
and the manuscript is summarizing the analysis done for the topic #1 ”map of the solar wind ion” within the Moon Mapping Project.
The manuscript contains a brief introduction of the Moon Mapping Project,
a brief introduction to solar wind topic and a brief description of the SWID detectors.
Moreover prior of the scientific results the manuscript contains specific sections on detailed methodological test:
-channel alignment validation
-data quality selections
-description of SWID spectrum background (MCP and UV)
The plots of these sections are original and these information are useful and new, they cannot be found in other published papers on Chang'E-1 SWID detectors.
After these sections, containing these detailed methodological tests,
the manuscript is containing our original measurement of the solar wind flux on the Moon based on SWIDs data.
Fig. 10 is comparing our estimation of Solar Wind flux on the Moon with the proton velocity measured by ACE at L1 (not on the Moon).
This plot is produced by us and I cannot find a similar one published elsewhere.
Fig. 11 and 12 are showing the relative composition of solar wind measured by SWIDs. Also these plot are new and not published elsewhere.
Fig. 14 is showing the effect of Earth magnetosphere.
It is not published elsewhere ad it is necessary to explain some features observed in Fig.15.
Fig. 15 is showing the possible correlation of measured solar wind with the average sunspot number.
This observation is new, not published elsewhere and (as also pointed out by referee 3) it could be scientifically interesting.
Finally in chaper5 two examples of the effect of Solar wind interaction with Moon surface are shown.
The flux population identified in fig 16 for the data collected in 30/12/2007 is similar to the one shown in [32] for the 28/05/2008.
and the flux population shown in fig 17 for the data collected in 01/07/2008 is similar to the one shown in [33] for the 10/12/2007.
The description of these effects are still a current topic of study for the Moon as deduced by reference [34]
therefore it is interesting to show these plots produced within the analysis of Moon-Mapping project topic #1.
Thus we do not agree with referee1 statement and
as commented by other colleagues (and by the other referees)
this manuscript is containing methodological tests on data
and new interesting information that are useful to share with the scientific community.
However, if this is the referee1 wish, I agree to change the manuscript type in Communication,
our interest is just to share our work with scientific community and to inspire further analysis of these data by combining them with data collected by other solar wind probes.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is a good research manuscript, but there are two points to be improved as below:
1) a separate 'Discussion' section should be added in the text body;
2) Reference format should be updated according to the author instructions;
3) Figures and tables are fine.
Author Response
Answer to Reviewer 2:
We thanks the Reviewer2 for reviewing this manuscript.
1)
This manuscript is submitted to the "Selected Papers from the 1st International Electronic Conference on Universe (ECU 2021)".
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe/special_issues/ecu2021 and is describing in details the work presented to the ECU2021 conference.
The title of the manuscript is "Moon Mapping project results on Solar Wind ion flux and composition"
and the manuscript is summarizing the analysis done for the topic #1 ”map of the solar wind ion” within the Moon Mapping Project.
We added a brief discussion for each measurement we provide in this manuscript, however the request to add a separate 'Discussion' section in the manuscript is a quite difficult work for us that is requiring deep expertise in modeling solar wind interactions with the residual small lunar magnetic fields an therefore this is outside our expertise.
To satisfy this referee request we renamed the last section as 'Summary and Discussion'
improving the content of this last section discussing the possible impact of the Chang'E-1 SWIDs measurements on the modeling of the complex phenomena related to solar wind interaction with the Moon.
2) All the reference format has been updated according to the author instructions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
I have read with interest the manuscript by Nozzoli & Richelli. They present and discuss the data obtained by the lunar orbiter Chang’E-1/2, and provide interpretation of the observations. The article is interesting and contains useful information on the data quality and reliability. There is some possible need for reconsidering some of the interpretation of the results, as I will describe in detail below. Other than that, the manuscript can be accepted for publication on Universe once the details below are taken into account. Also, the English should be improved, in particular the punctuation needs to be revised. 1) line 34: I am not sure SOHO is a good example of solar wind probes. 2) beginning of Section 2: as I understand, this is a top-hat type electrostatic analyzer. Maybe the authors could mention this popular nickname in their description? 3) lines 162-163: the correlation with solar flares and sunspot number is not shown at this point, and may not be relevant here. I see clearly the good description of the alternate slow and fast solar wind streams, which is of course connected, but not in a trivial way, to solar activity (see also next point). 4) lines 203-214: similarly, It seems to me that rather that having a delayed correlation, there could be an anti-correlation between the sunspot number and the ion flux. This could be due to the fact that when more active regions are present, typically more slow solar wind is observed, due to the closed coronal structures. On the contrary, quiet sun may be associated with coronal holes that emit mostly fast wind. Perhaps the authors should consider this possibility as an alternative explanation of their observation. I am not aware of a direct correlation between the flux and sunspot number, so maybe if they have some reference about it, it is best to cite it.Author Response
Answer to Reviewer3.
We thank you for the useful suggestions and comments.
We revise the manuscript improving the English and the punctuation.
Here the answer to the specific points suggested by Reviewer 3:
Answer 1)
The SOHO spacecraft was hosting some sub-detectors
(CELIAS, SWAN, COSTEP and ERNE) that measures the solar wind directly.
I agree that SOHO is mainly known for the beautiful images of the Sun surface.
For this reason we flip the SOHO and ACE position in the list of line 34
Answer 2)
We fully agree with the referee.
We modified line 60 mentioning this popular name for the SWID detector.
Answer 3)
We agree with the referee.
The sentence was modified removing from line 162-163-164 the comment about variations of average sunspot number and magnitude of solar flares.
Answer 4)
We thanks the referee to suggesting this alternative explanation that has been included at the end of Section 4 (lines 216-219).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comment on manuscript universe-1197267 (2nd round)
Moon Mapping project results on Solar Wind ion flux and composition
By Francesco Nozzoli and Pietro Richelli
After the revision of the manuscript, its quality has improved and it can be published as Communication or Project Report.
Change in the style of the article must be coordinated with the editorial board, not with the reviewer.
If the authors want to leave the manuscript as a scientific article, then they need to seriously modify 2 groups of problems.
- Technical characteristics of sensors.
To understand the presented measurements, you need to supplement the article with the characteristics of the instruments. As I understand it, the authors provide data on the distance between steps of measurements instead of real (measured in the laboratory) data on the resolution of the instruments. For example, the text gives "an energy resolution of 8%". This value is sufficient to select the "O group" and "Si group" peaks in the energy spectrum. However, in the spectrum in Fig. 11 these groups are not visible. The reader will not be able to understand why they are not selected: due to insufficient energy resolution, due to the absence of these ions in the solar wind at the time of measurement, or due to some other unknown reason. The same goes for angular resolution of the instruments.
- The novelty of the results.
1) The authors do not indicate which results have not yet been published and are new.
2) Most of the "results" are presented in terms of "instrument observations" rather than in terms of "physical relationships" or "physical processes".
Agreement with ACE measurements is important for verification of measurements, but is not a scientific result.
Author Response
We thanks the Reviewer1 for reviewing the manuscript and providing useful suggestions.
Reviewer1 Question 0)
After the revision of the manuscript, its quality has improved and it can be published as Communication or Project Report.
Change in the style of the article must be coordinated with the editorial board, not with the reviewer.
If the authors want to leave the manuscript as a scientific article, then they need to seriously modify 2 groups of problems.
Answer 0)
We informed the Editor about Reviewer1 concerns.
In principle we are not against such a change, we will newly address this question to Editor.
However we will improve the manuscript following the Referee1 question 1 and 2.1 and 2.2.
Reviewer1 Question 1) Technical characteristics of sensors.
Question 1.1) To understand the presented measurements, you need to supplement the article with the characteristics of the instruments.
As I understand it, the authors provide data on the distance between steps of measurements instead of real (measured in the laboratory)
data on the resolution of the instruments. For example, the text gives "an energy resolution of 8%".
Answer 1.1)
The characteristics of the instrument, necessary to understand present measurements are explained in section 2.
In particular, there, the working principle of the top-hat electrostatic analyzer is explained.
The numbers provided there (as the 8% energy resolution or the angular resolution) are summarized from the one quoted in ref. [20].
This manuscript is describing the data analysis results of "Moon Mapping project on topic #1 map of the solar wind ion"
therefore further and detailed descriptions of the SWIDs hardware are beyond our scope.
Moreover the analysis given in section 2.2 and fig.4 and fig.5, section 2.3 and fig.6, section 2.4 and fig.7 and fig.8
are describing in details technical characteristics of SWIDs sensors that are not mentioned elsewhere.
I still do not understand why the Referee1 is not satisfied by a manuscript describing the results of these data analysis.
Reviewer1 Question 1.2)
This value is sufficient to select the "O group" and "Si group" peaks in the energy spectrum.
However, in the spectrum in Fig. 11 these groups are not visible.
The reader will not be able to understand why they are not selected:
due to insufficient energy resolution, due to the absence of these ions in the solar wind at the time of measurement, or due to some other unknown reason.
Answer 1.2)
In the manuscript it is already stated that:
"The main peak is due to the abundant flux of protons. The second peak is dominated by doubly ionized Helium, He ++ , whereas the third small bump is a superposition of heavier ionized elements, mainly Oxygen, Silicon and Iron."
An expert reader would be able to understand why the "O group" and "Si group" peaks are not resolved, however to explicitly explain why it is not possible to resolve the "O group" and "Si group" to a wider audience,
as the Reviewer1 suggests, a sentence is added (lines 175-181):
Reviewer1 Question2) The novelty of the results.
Question 2.1) The authors do not indicate which results have not yet been published and are new.
Answer 2.1)
We feel uncomfortable to insert "self-celebration" in a manuscript,
however to satisfy the request of Referee1 we modify the manuscript:
- Line 154: "new" was added in the sentence relative to fig. 9
- Line 160: "this important measurement was obtained in our analysis" was added in the sentence relative to fig. 10
- Line 170: "measured in our analysis of Chang'E-1 data" was added in the sentence relative to fig. 11
- Line 183: "we found that" was added in the sentence relative to fig. 12
- Line 207: "therefore the flux measurement shown in fig 14 is able to sample the magnetopause geometry in this specific period." was added.
- Line 216: "measured in our analysis of Chang'E-1 data" was added in the sentence relative to fig. 15
- Line 254: "(as the one reported in [32] for 28/05/2008)" was added in the manuscript to stress that the stream shown in fig. 16 is similar but not the same of the one shown in [32].
- Line 263: "for 10/12/2007" was added in the sentence to stress that the stream shown in fig. 17 is similar but not the same of the one shown in [33].
(regarding fig. 4, fig. 6, fig. 7 and fig. 8 it is well mentioned in the text that they are methodological test we developed in our analysis)
We hope Rewiever1 should be now persuaded about the novelty of the results of "Moon Mapping project on topic #1 map of the solar wind ion"
summarized for this special issue of "Selected Papers from the 1st International Electronic Conference on Universe (ECU 2021)"
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe/special_issues/ecu2021
Reviewer1 Question 2.2) Most of the "results" are presented in terms of "instrument observations" rather than in terms of "physical relationships" or "physical processes".
Answer 2.2) We strongly disagree on this point, we always address the "physical processes" behind each measurement:
- Section 2.4 we explained the "physical processes" causing the two main sources of SWIDs background (UV and MCP noise)
- Figure 10 we explained that "variations of intensity and velocity of the solar wind ion flux" are able to explain the flux measurement.
We partially disagree Referee1 sentence: "Agreement with ACE measurements is important for verification of measurements, but is not a scientific result"
The ACE detector is not orbiting the Moon, thus a comparison with ACE can test/rule-out small angular scale anisotropy in the solar wind emission process.
The sentence "and to test the possible anisotropy of solar wind emission processes" is added at line 273.
- The physical processes involved in fig. 10 and fig. 11 are explained, this is demonstrated also by curiosity of Referee1 in question 1.1
- The physical processes involved in fig. 14 are extensively explained. The section 4 is named "Solar wind interaction with Earth’s Magnetic fields"
- The physical processes involved in fig. 15 are interesting and possibly new as the Referee3 suggested.
- The stream phenomenology observed in fig. 16 and fig. 17 are described. In particular the "physical processes" of pick-up ion and the "physical relationship" with Moon south pole are addressed. A complete model of these effects is still object of study (ref. [34]) and is beyond the scope of this manuscript.
Finally we would remind that this manuscript is a contribution to the special issue of "Selected Papers from the 1st International Electronic Conference on Universe (ECU 2021)"
To provide one example of a "scientific article" already published in this special issue: https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7040086
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version has been improved greatly more than the original version. But the current version still needs to be revised for the following points:
1) As mentioned in Abstract and Introduction, The ”Moon Mapping” project is a collaboration between the Italian and Chinese Governments allowing cooperation and exchange between students from both countries. For this reason, it should be mentioned either in authorship or acknowledgements to Chinese scientists for the project;
2) A section of "Summary and Discussion" should be changed as "Discussion and Summary";
3) Funding information and Acknowledgements should be added too;
4) Contributions of each author should also be mentioned.
Author Response
We thanks Reviewer2 for reviewing the manuscript.
Here the modification to the manuscript to satisfy the Reviewer2 suggestions:
Q1) As mentioned in Abstract and Introduction, The ”Moon Mapping” project is a collaboration between the Italian and Chinese Governments
allowing cooperation and exchange between students from both countries.
For this reason, it should be mentioned either in authorship or acknowledgements to Chinese scientists for the project;
R1) The Acknowledgments section was added.
Q2) A section of "Summary and Discussion" should be changed as "Discussion and Summary";
R2) The title of the section has been modified as requested
Q3) Funding information and Acknowledgements should be added too;
R3) The Acknowledgments section was added.
Regarding the funding information, since no funds have been devoted to activities of MoonMapping topic #1, we prefer to avoid this section.
Q4) Contributions of each author should also be mentioned.
R4) Specific information on author contribution to manuscript and analysis
are already given in the MDPI submission process.
Since this manuscript is not involving "several authors",
we mention briefly the F.Nozzoli role in the Acknowledgments.
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.
