Validating Precise Orbit Determination from Satellite-Borne GPS Data of Haiyang-2D

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors like very much to propose most of all of the methods.

Authors made a statement for ecample in the conclusions that:  "The proposed SLR 3D, inter-satellite differential"

The proposed carrier differential validation "

Authors must clearly distinguish which methods are existing and which method were uniquely.

I know SLR method, differential methods, which are know from many years.

It is not fair to give a feeling to the readers that authors proposed them...

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting, it describes the current problem of validation of the altimeter satellite trajectory, for which the exact trajectory is a fundamental prerequisite for the use of performed measurements.
It is easy to read, but English needs to be improved.

The use of GNSS and SLR data is mentioned in some detail in the introduction, but the use of DORIS data is not mentioned practically at all, even if it occurs (Chapter 4.4).
line 66: Bertiger et al (multiple authors citation)
line 84: what KBR means ? - not explained when first used
line 131-132: the introduction of corrections from tropospheric and ionospheric refraction is mentioned. Is it really necessary to introduce them for measurements from a satellite at an altitude of about 970 km, ie outside the atmosphere?
Missing citations of origin of formulas (1), (14), (15)
In relation (2), the denominator of fractions is 100000, and must be 1000000
line 195-205: use italics for "a" and "b" for GPS satellite for clarity
Relation (13): if delta is RMS, ie root mean square error and not variances, then in the relation all must be exponentiated to the second
line 239: instead of "distance" it is better to use "coordinate"
line 240: instead of "directions" it is better to use "coordinates"
Description Figure 1 too short, expand.
lines 306-308: for CODE, ILRS, IGS, the links required by the institutions or services should be used, web links are not the most relevant
lines 315-316: references for TIDE2000, FES2004 and DE405 are completely missing
Table 3: errors: "Field" no "Feld", "tides" no "Ti des"
line 342: add "... mechanics model that we use in POD ..."
line 246: add "... residuals depending on the altitude angle is plotted in ..."
line 349: you claim that in Figure 2: "RMS of the residuals in 7.8 mm" but it really doesn't match what is in Figure 2
line 363: replace "centroid compensation correction" with a more appropriate "center of mass correction"
line 372: the abbreviation NP is not explained at the first occurrence
Figure 4: the description of the right vertical axis does not align with the division of the axis and it is unclear whether the division or the description applies
line 400: missing space "HY-2D and"
line 406 and 408: citation missing for Saastamoinen model and Niel Mapping Function
description Table 6: "orbit" not "orbital"
Figure 6: due to different scales on the vertical axes, it is problematic to compare individual images
Description Figure 7: better to use "GPS" instead of "Navigation"
line 485: shouldn't there be a place Table 8 Table 9?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your corrections

Author Response

Thank you for your reply.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for revising the manuscript but I did not see any significant improvements of the manuscript.

Equations (2) and (13) have been update without any explanations.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx