Performance Investigation of the Conjunction Filter Methods and Enhancement of Computation Speed on Conjunction Assessment Analysis with CUDA Techniques
, Sittiporn Channumsin 2,*, Suwat Sreesawet 2, Keerati Puttasuwan 1,2 and Thanathip Limna 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I read the study entitled: “Performance Investigation of the conjunction filter methods and enhancement of computation speed on conjunction assessment analysis with CUDA techniques”. The authors developed an algorithm for shorting the computation time for the investigation of possible of collision between paired conjunction. It helps in the planning of collision maneuvers. They use Smart Sieve, CSieve, and the combination of both methods to analyze the conjunction of a single satellite. (one vs. all) and all space objects (all vs. all). The study is good, but there are some revisions that need to be taken into account before considering it to be published.
Major revision:
Line 100: what is the N parameter? Is it the total pair? The authors should be clarified.
Equation 2: Why are authors divided by 2 ? or where is the reference?
What is the benefit of session 2.1, and why was it put? I recommend omitting it, and deleting the relevant references.
Line 120: what is the difference between
Line 250: N parameter is it the same as equation 2?
Line 260: what is the meaning of point “•”?
Minor revision:
The English writing needs to be revised and improved. Below are some of these wrongs.
I suggest putting an abbreviation for both: (one vs all) and (all vs all). For example “OVA” and “AVA”.
Abstract section:
There is potential è There is a potential
to damage è of damaging
generate the huge number è generating a huge number
after collided è after they collide
increases from space object rising è increasing number of space objects rises
predict potential è predict the potential
at applied è when applied
Introduction section:
screening the number è screens the number
Three filter methods that screens è There are three filter methods that screen
Architecture CUDA è Architecture (CUDA)
speed discussion in section 4 è speed, which is discussed
space object pairs depends on the conjunction è space object pair depends on the conjunction
sometimes, authors use “vs” without a point. And sometimes with point “vs.” such as in section title 3.1. they must put a point for all manuscript text.
Line 231: Five è remove the bold style. Why “to analyze conjunction assessments.” Is bold? Omit this style.
What is the unit of table columns? Period, Inclination, Apogee, Perigee.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions. We have addressed each of your concerns and made the necessary changes to the manuscript.
Please see the attachment for the response to the revision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presenting paper deals with the performance of conjuntion filters to analize the conjunction of a singles stallite and all space objects. The performance of conjunction filters, specifically Smart Sieve, CSieve, and CAOS-D, have been compared in terms of computation speed in two different scenario: sincle core and GPU parallel computing.
There are several grammar and language issues with the text, which can make it difficult to read and understand. Introduction should be rewritten.
It is recommended to deepen the bibliographic research by including more recent works.
It is recommended to redraw the diagram presented in Figure 2 as a flow diagram or as a BPMN
What is the novelty highlighted by the presented paper? The GPU for computational calculations is already widely used in the orbit analysis and measurement sector. What is the innovation that this paper aims to bring compared to the state of the art?
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions, and we hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.
Please see the attachment for the response to the revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I recoomand to publish this manuscript. I just need minor english revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revision of the presented paper shows a clear improvement both in terms of expositional clarity (rewritten abstract, correction of English grammar in the introduction) and in terms of clarity of the scientific method used.
There are still some minor English errors remaining.
