Dear Dr. Stude and co-authors,

I would like to commend you on your efforts to address the comments and critiques of the reviewers to the submitted manuscript. I think the revised manuscript is in good condition, but would ask the authors to consider the following comments.

The last sentence in section 2.2 ('Heavier particles...') would benefit from somewhat fuller description.

It would perhaps be better to include the operational specifications of the mass spectrometer (the mass spectral scan rate/time, the number of channels) in the electronics section (2.3) along with the speed of the rocket since this provides information on the vertical resolution of the measurements.

In section 2.4 referring to the lower panel of Fig. 5, is there information about instrument performance that can be drawn from the steeper falloff with increasing mass of the measured signal to that of the theoretical?

The abstract contains information about the launch that does not appear in the text--please include full details in section 3.1. I did not see that you addressed one reviewer's question about payload separation.

The additional text addressing the reviewers' questions about charge balance is a good addition, but the description of the potential impact of payload charging could be better introduced or more fully developed. The section focuses on the charge balance at ~70 km, but the difference between the spectra at ~55 km is even starker (essentially no positive ions).

Dear Dr. Stude and co-authors,
Thank you for your additional efforts in promptly addressing my comments on your manuscript. I am happy to accept the revised manuscript for publication.
Warm regards,
Troy Thornberry
AMT Associate Editor