From SuperTIGER to TIGERISS
, W. V. Zober 1,†,‡, Q. Abarr 2,†, Y. Akaike 3,†, W. R. Binns 1,†, R. F. Borda 4,‡, R. G. Bose 1,†,‡, T. J. Brandt 5,†, D. L. Braun 1,†, J. H. Buckley 1,†,‡, N. W. Cannady 4,6,7,†,‡, S. Coutu 8,9,‡, R. M. Crabill 10,†, P. F. Dowkontt 1,†, M. H. Israel 1,†, M. Kandula 11,‡, J. F. Krizmanic 6,†,‡, A. W. Labrador 10,†, W. Labrador 1,†,‡, L. Lisalda 1,†,‡, M. P. McPherson 12,‡, J. G. Mitchell 13,‡, R. P. Murphy 14,†, G. A. de Nolfo 13,†,‡, K. Sakai 16,†,‡, M. Sasaki 6,7,17,†,‡, A. T. West 20,†and add
Show full author list
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I read the submitted paper. It explains clearly the physics of UHGCR that is complementary to many other research ongoing in the field of understanding the origin and evolution of elements. In the paper results from previous missions on balloons (TIGER, SuperTIGER) are reviewed in terms of instrumentation and results obtained. The status of the project TIGERISS, a new iteration of the detector designed to be installed on the ISS, is described in terms of the new instrumentation employed (SSD and SiPM), the payload development, the thermal analysis, and the expected performances.
I found the paper very well written clear, and complete, I have no concerns, and I will suggest the editor accept it in its current form.
I hope that you will be able at some point to collect SuperTIGER in Antarctica. On the other side, progress on TIGERISS is encouraging, and the prospects of the measurements that will be done by the instrument are very interesting.
Author Response
I thank the reviewer for their effort on this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is very well written. I do not have any specific comments. It seems to me that it can be published as it is
Author Response
I thank the reviewer for their effort on this paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an important update about the plans for the future version of the TIGER family of detectors on the ISS, TIGERISS. There are new constraints coming from the changed accommodation opportunities on the JEM and Columbus modules. The paper evaluates the consequences of these changes for the performance and expected results. In the past, the TIGER family of balloon borne instruments has delivered important results of the abundance of very heavy elements in cosmic rays. This has shed new light on the production of these elements in s- and r-processes. The new device is expected to improve on these results and extend them to even heavier species.
Concerning text and figures I have the following suggestions:
Fig. 4: Radiators are not shown on Fig. 4c, contrary to what the text says.
Fig. 5a: shows 1/4 of the set-up, otherwise there is conflict with Table 1.
Section 3.3: There is only mention of consequences for the passive thermal control on instrument survival, not on performance. It is not obvious how accurate charge calibration can be achieved under the varying thermal conditions on the ISS.
Line 221: should be ..downsized by 17cm in length and 7cm in width
Author Response
I thank the reviewer for their feedback. Addressing the points raised will improve paper clarity!
Point 1: Fig. 4: Radiators are not shown on Fig. 4c, contrary to what the text says.
The radiator in question is a Cherenkov-light radiator and is labeled "Acrylic" in the figure. Obviously I need to make this point clear, especially since later on thermal radiators are discussed. I propose modifying the sentence:
An expanded view of the TIGERISS acrylic Cherenkov detector in Fig. 4.3 shows that the radiators will be at the top of the detectors to improve light collection over the bottom placement used in the balloon-borne instruments.
To:
An expanded view of a TIGERISS Cherenkov detector in Fig. 4.3 shows that the Cherenkov-light radiators, in this case acrylic, will be at the top of the detector boxes to improve light collection over the bottom placement used in the balloon-borne instruments.
Point 2: Fig. 5a: shows 1/4 of the set-up, otherwise there is conflict with Table 1.
The units in the original figure were inches and not specified. I had thought to address this in the caption while writing the paper but failed to do so. I have had the figure updated to include units and to have dimensions in both inches and cm.
Point 3: Section 3.3: There is only mention of consequences for the passive thermal control on instrument survival, not on performance. It is not obvious how accurate charge calibration can be achieved under the varying thermal conditions on the ISS.
I propose adding the sentence:
As with SuperTIGER, TIGERISS will correct for time-varying detector gain responses from changing temperatures by normalizing detector signals using 26Fe and/or other of the more abundant cosmic-ray nuclei species.
Point 4: Line 221: should be ..downsized by 17cm in length and 7cm in width
Indeed, I have changed this text:
Addressing subsystem interface requirements to constrain the mechanical model design envelopes for needed electronics, cabling, and thermal systems resulted in the standard JEM-EF instrument configuration in the proposal being downsized by 17cm in length and 7cm in width, as shown in Table 1.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the new version, I have no more comments.
