On-Orbit Pulse Phase Estimation Based on CE-Adam Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper discusses a combined CE-Adam algorithm for on-orbit pulse phase estimation for pulsar-based spacecraft navigation. I found the paper very interesting and well-written. I would suggest some minor improvements, listed below:
- Figure 4 may benefit from a log scale for the vertical axis, to improve readability of the smaller errors for a high number of iterations.
- As the authors are comparing the CPU time required by the different algorithm, they may consider to specify the main characteristics of the system they tested the algorithms on (e.g. CPU clock, memory, and employed software).
- I suggest adding a short "Conclusions" section to highlight the key findings of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The file with the comments is attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article raises an important issue that can make a significant scientific contribution. The authors have indicated that they are able to improve other pulse phase estimation methods. A combination of the selected two was used in this case. It was indicated that a reduction in computational cost was achieved, while the performance is still at an appropriate level. I, however, have some important suggestions here. The first concerns unquantified terminology. Authors very often mention that computational cost is high or low. The same is true for performance. However, it has not been proven that previous methods no longer give satisfactory results. If this is the case, then there is no point in improving and exploring them. It would be clearer why this topic was taken up, to indeed indicate the limits for computational cost and performance to aim for. Which will be satisfactory in this case. Is the result obtained the one to stop further work on this topic? Please also explain why 1000 iterations were adopted for Monte Carlo simulation. Is this number sufficient and adequate? However, the most important drawback of this paper is that the literature review is insufficient. This topic has been covered many times in the scientific literature and many more methods can be found. These are different methods than those identified in this paper. Therefore, a comparison to all research works on this topic was not done. Therefore, it cannot be concluded whether this work represents a significant improvement to the current state of knowledge. So can you please expand the literature review and make a broader comparison? (More global). This will make it clear how your method improves this process.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
All my questions have been answered. These issues have been included in the new version of the article.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “On-orbit pulse phase estimation based on CE-Adam algorithm” (ID: aerospace-1120875). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper.
