From Scholarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

     : Reviewer B comments

    1. The JASMINE article is largely acceptable in its current form. However....

    2. An effort to improve numerous small imperfections in the English throughout the text would aid the readability.

    3. In the standard conventions for Hipparcos and Gaia, both are written in lower case (not HIPPARCOS, GAIA).

    4. Nano-JASMINE: specify clearly the limiting magnitude, completeness, and number of stars

    5. Small-JASMINE: specify number of stars

    6. Small and medium-sized JASMINE: specify the detector technology, including readout mode (and noise), and integration time

    7. Data reduction for the latter two missions are unclear: is the method of "frames-link" different to the classical "block adjustment"? If so, how are the large-scale distortions handled? Perhaps they simply intend to link the measurements to the Gaia reference star positions? In any case it remains unclear how absolute proper motions and parallaxes will be derived.

    8. In such an academic-focussed article, I do not consider that Figures 1, 3, and 4 contribute very much.

    9. I suggest that additional technical details of real interest to the specialised readership of Scholarpedia should be added. For example, for nano-Jasmine to be launched in 2011, there could (should?) be mention of the following:

      - mirror technology
      - the actual value of the basic angle between the two viewing directions
      - thermal control 
      - the attitude control system (thruster details)
      - on-board data handling (including on-board processing)
      - telemetry rate, on-board data storage, and ground station configuration
      - mission duration,
      - schedule for the catalogue availability
      - methods to limit CCD radiation damage and charge-transfer inefficiency

    Author :

    To the reviewer A: Thank you very much for improving my some poor English. I agreed with all your modifications. Thank you.

    I modified and added some sentences according to the reviewer B. I would appreciate it greatly if you could check again the sentences.

    To reviewer B: Thank you very much for your useful and helpful comments. I modified and added some sentences almost according to your comments. I have one comment. You suggested me that some figures should be removed. In the figure captions, I wrote "artist's impression" in the previous version of the manuscript, but in fact, it is "real" structures (design) of the satellites which engineers made, that means, the figures are sketches. I modified the figure captions. I think that these figures are helpful for understanding for non-experts, but if they are not truly appropriate in the Scholarpedia, I agree with the remove of thses figures. I will leave it up to you and the editor.

    Thank you so much again for your reviews.

    Naoteru Gouda

    Personal tools

    Focal areas