Uncertainty Analysis and Improvement of Propellant Gauging System Applied in Space

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting analysis worthy of discussion. There are some errors (for example In Figure 6, start is mis-spelt ‘Strat’) and the paper would benefit from careful proof-reading.

 

% uncertainty is used throughout, but no reference was found to the definition of this. In the case of the tank volume measurement is this % of full tank volume, or % of reading? In the case of pressure and temperature the same question - is this % of reading (in which case what happens when the temperature is 0 degC?) or % of operating range. In all cases this should be specified together with the operating range of the instruments. In my view uncertainty of tank volume should be expressed in %full as %reading becomes undefined as the tank approaches empty.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for the careful reading in language and content of the reviewer.

The draft has been polished in language and the refined contents have been highlighted in the uploaded version.

The uncertainty is defined asd the full scale of each phycial parameter.

Please find the attachment to your comments.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

- Title should be updated;

- The manuscript will benefit from proof reading (there is a number of spelling errors through out the text, including "week" instead of weak in Abstract..

- Reference to Equations near line 69 to be checked;  

- Where are the analysed conditions coming from?

- Diagram shown in Figure 5 is not explained appropriately; 

- Not clear how the manuscript benefit from Figure 5 b; 

- Not clear how the Results shown in Figure 6 relate to the Monte Carlo simulations presented elsewhere; 

Author Response

Thanks a lot for the careful reading in language and content of the reviewer.

Title has been adjusted and please find it in the attachment.

The manuscript has been read for several to elimite the spelling mistake.

Reference of each equation has been re-numbered.

The reason for the analyzed condition chosen has been given.

Figure 5 has been explained well in the new version.

The benefit from figure 6 has been analyzed in the new version.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript falls into the scope of journal. All the sections of the manuscript require further improvements prior to further consideration for publication. The English language requires a thorough check by a native speaker to eliminate any grammatical errors. For instance, avoid using future tense in the manuscript.

The introduction requires a more thorough discussion on the topic, a review of published literature, and its importance for the literature.

Most of the statements on the topic remain uncited. This is specifically true for the equations, and the methodology section, such as theoretical Model of PGS method.

Improve the discussion section by providing a better comparison analysis on the results.

The conclusion section is rather short, and does not reflect the significance of the outcomes. And how this work would contribute to future research.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your hard working and the detailed suggestion on our manuscript.

A new version of draft has been accompolished and please find the attachment of our answer to your nice suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have properly addressed the comments. the manuscript can be further considered for publication.