the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 10 Aug 2021
The Antarctic Stratospheric Aerosol Observation and Sample-Return System Using Two-Stage Separation Method of a Balloon-Assisted Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Abstract. The authors have developed a system for the Antarctic stratospheric aerosol observation and sample-return using the combination of a rubber balloon, a parachute, and a gliding fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). A rubber balloon can usually reach 20 km to 30 km in altitude, but it becomes difficult for the UAV designed as a low-subsonic UAV to directly glide back from the stratospheric altitudes because the quantitative aerodynamic characteristics necessary for the control system design at such altitudes are difficult to obtain. In order to make the observation and sample-return possible at such higher altitudes while avoiding the problem with the control system of the UAV, the method using the two-stage separation was developed and attempted in Antarctica. In two-stage separation method, the UAV first descends by a parachute after separating from the balloon at stratospheric altitude to a certain altitude wherein the flight control system of the UAV works properly. Then it secondly separates the parachute for autonomous gliding back to the released point on the ground. The UAV in which an optical particle counter and an airborne aerosol sampler were installed was launched on January 24, 2015 from S17 (69.028S, 40.093E, 607 m MSL) near Syowa Station in Antarctica. The system reached 23 km in altitude and the UAV successfully returned aerosol samples. In this paper, the details of the UAV system using the two-stage separation method including the observation flight results, and the preliminary results of the observation and analyses of the samples are shown.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(1471 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-234', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2021
This too short paper presents a description of aerosols measurements from a balloon and an UAV in the troposphere and in the stratosphere. The paper is more a technical note than a scientific paper. I am sorry to be so negative, but no real scientific objectives are presented, no valuable scientific introduction is proposed, no significant result are provided, and no correct scientific interpretations are conducted. Also, the authors give reference to Japanese papers only. Although the authors are honest because they always said :“preliminary results” and “ further investigation is necessary”, the scientific analysis is not well conducted ant the paper is very far from the AMT standards. Thus, major revision with more work to do are needed before submitted a possible revised version. Or the authors could submitted such revised version to another journal with lower standards.
Specific comments:
Line 30-31: Can you provide a reference ? I think the authors make a confusion. I agree that the aerosols content in the boundary layer could be lower in Antarctica than in the polluted areas, but this is not true in the stratosphere.
Lune 32-33: This comment is to general. Can the authors be more precise?
Line 35: It not acceptable to give only one reference (to a Japanese paper). There are many publications on this subject. The authors must conducted and provide a serious bibliography.
Line 35-36: This comment is also valid for other place in the world! I suggest to remove it.
Lines 38-39: It is strange that the authors has given reference only to Japanese works (some of them are old). They have omitted the work performed in other countries. Regular flights are conducted mainly by two teams in the word, an American one and a French one. One again, the bibliography on the subject is not well conducted.
Line 48: Can you provide a reference?
Line 149: I am not sure that part 4.1 is necessary to be provided. Several tools for such purpose already exist, and the present description does not provide something new.
Line 189-19’: It is obvious that no /no-go decisions are based on meteorological conditions: this paragraph must be removed.
Line 201-208: These kind of information, usual for such kind of flight, are unnecessary for a paper in AMT and must be removed (note that the meaning of the red arrows in figure 7 is not provided).
Line 210 -220: Giving a reference to a paper in Japanese is not serious. There are many papers on the vertical profiles of stratospheric aerosols mainly written by the French and American teams. The authors must conduct a serious analysis of their measurements and perform a comparison to these other works. How are they sure that their measurements are valid and that the instruments work well in the stratosphere ? Also, they must provide errors bars. Finally, the authors must give references to other works on the Kelut eruption.
Line 223-238: Several paper of collected aerosols are existing (mainly form German and Italian teams). Again, the authors must conducted a serious bibliography before providing their conclusions. Also, are they sure that no contamination are present in their sample ? The analysis is too short and the results in table 7 are no really significant. Indeed, further analyses are necessary.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-234-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-234', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Sep 2021
The introduction is much too long, is hardly a review of previous aerosol measurements in Antarctica, it is limited only to Japanese references, and is not a basis to justify occasional aerosol samples in summer in Antarctica. There have been extensive aerosol measurements using balloons and aircraft over Antarctica covering a much broader range of time, altitude, and space, all of which were ignored.
But the paper is not focused on aerosol sampling, that just happens to be the scientific instrument deployed using the balloon/UAV system, which is the primary focus of the paper. The authors describe this system adequately, but it is a rather straight forward combination of two well-known platforms for in situ atmospheric sampling: balloons and UAVs. The somewhat novel application combines the UAV onto a sounding balloon, with the UAV doubling as an instrument gondola. Once the balloon flight is terminated, or the balloon bursts, the UAV/instrument gondola is parachuted down to an air density suitable for flight, somewhere near 10 km. The UAV then has a homing program installed such that the control surfaces are set for a return to base. Once over the release site the UAV spirals down to the surface, thus returning the instruments. This is a nice result to recover the instruments; however, the authors attempted two flights to stratospheric altitudes, yet only one returned to base. The authors offer no explanation of the fate of the other instrument, or why it might have failed. The reader only knows about this failure from the flight summary in Table 6. The authors also do not explain why more flights were not made with the instrument recovered. The beauty of recovering instruments in remote locations is that the instruments can be re-used, thus limiting the number of instruments required to be deployed to the remote site.
The authors also do not mention the fact that such a flight system can be used in Antarctica because the air space is not governed by a national air control organization, such as the FAA in the US, CASA in Australia, nor the ICAO standards for air traffic control. In locations where these rules apply, this system would not work since the UAV becomes a “piloted” aircraft above about 1000 meters, and thus would be subject to air traffic control. Once the air platform is so classified, a whole new set of requirements are faced beyond that for a free balloon.
In conclusion this paper is not really appropriate for the AMT journal. While the work is interesting, it merely builds on already established technologies, has very limited applications, and does not provide any measurements which could not be obtained by a sounding balloon, good prediction, and recovery vehicle. In addition, the predicted trajectories and the actual trajectories for the one flight recovered were significantly different with little explanation, and the one failure was not explained. From the one successful flight the authors conclude that possibly some aerosol from the Kelut eruption, in February 2014 near the equator, were sampled. The suggestion that Kelut aerosol were measured, nearly a year later over Syowa, raises many questions, none of which are discussed by the authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-234-RC2 -
EC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-234', Johannes Schneider, 04 Oct 2021
Dear authors,
as you have seen, both reviewers have several severe points of critic regarding your manuscript. I therefore discourage the submission of a revised version, because the chances that a revised version can be accepted are low.
You may try another journal, or rework the whole manuscript, taking the reviews into account and re-submit the manuscript as a new submission at a later stage.
Best regards,
Johannes Schneider
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-234-EC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-234', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2021
This too short paper presents a description of aerosols measurements from a balloon and an UAV in the troposphere and in the stratosphere. The paper is more a technical note than a scientific paper. I am sorry to be so negative, but no real scientific objectives are presented, no valuable scientific introduction is proposed, no significant result are provided, and no correct scientific interpretations are conducted. Also, the authors give reference to Japanese papers only. Although the authors are honest because they always said :“preliminary results” and “ further investigation is necessary”, the scientific analysis is not well conducted ant the paper is very far from the AMT standards. Thus, major revision with more work to do are needed before submitted a possible revised version. Or the authors could submitted such revised version to another journal with lower standards.
Specific comments:
Line 30-31: Can you provide a reference ? I think the authors make a confusion. I agree that the aerosols content in the boundary layer could be lower in Antarctica than in the polluted areas, but this is not true in the stratosphere.
Lune 32-33: This comment is to general. Can the authors be more precise?
Line 35: It not acceptable to give only one reference (to a Japanese paper). There are many publications on this subject. The authors must conducted and provide a serious bibliography.
Line 35-36: This comment is also valid for other place in the world! I suggest to remove it.
Lines 38-39: It is strange that the authors has given reference only to Japanese works (some of them are old). They have omitted the work performed in other countries. Regular flights are conducted mainly by two teams in the word, an American one and a French one. One again, the bibliography on the subject is not well conducted.
Line 48: Can you provide a reference?
Line 149: I am not sure that part 4.1 is necessary to be provided. Several tools for such purpose already exist, and the present description does not provide something new.
Line 189-19’: It is obvious that no /no-go decisions are based on meteorological conditions: this paragraph must be removed.
Line 201-208: These kind of information, usual for such kind of flight, are unnecessary for a paper in AMT and must be removed (note that the meaning of the red arrows in figure 7 is not provided).
Line 210 -220: Giving a reference to a paper in Japanese is not serious. There are many papers on the vertical profiles of stratospheric aerosols mainly written by the French and American teams. The authors must conduct a serious analysis of their measurements and perform a comparison to these other works. How are they sure that their measurements are valid and that the instruments work well in the stratosphere ? Also, they must provide errors bars. Finally, the authors must give references to other works on the Kelut eruption.
Line 223-238: Several paper of collected aerosols are existing (mainly form German and Italian teams). Again, the authors must conducted a serious bibliography before providing their conclusions. Also, are they sure that no contamination are present in their sample ? The analysis is too short and the results in table 7 are no really significant. Indeed, further analyses are necessary.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-234-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-234', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Sep 2021
The introduction is much too long, is hardly a review of previous aerosol measurements in Antarctica, it is limited only to Japanese references, and is not a basis to justify occasional aerosol samples in summer in Antarctica. There have been extensive aerosol measurements using balloons and aircraft over Antarctica covering a much broader range of time, altitude, and space, all of which were ignored.
But the paper is not focused on aerosol sampling, that just happens to be the scientific instrument deployed using the balloon/UAV system, which is the primary focus of the paper. The authors describe this system adequately, but it is a rather straight forward combination of two well-known platforms for in situ atmospheric sampling: balloons and UAVs. The somewhat novel application combines the UAV onto a sounding balloon, with the UAV doubling as an instrument gondola. Once the balloon flight is terminated, or the balloon bursts, the UAV/instrument gondola is parachuted down to an air density suitable for flight, somewhere near 10 km. The UAV then has a homing program installed such that the control surfaces are set for a return to base. Once over the release site the UAV spirals down to the surface, thus returning the instruments. This is a nice result to recover the instruments; however, the authors attempted two flights to stratospheric altitudes, yet only one returned to base. The authors offer no explanation of the fate of the other instrument, or why it might have failed. The reader only knows about this failure from the flight summary in Table 6. The authors also do not explain why more flights were not made with the instrument recovered. The beauty of recovering instruments in remote locations is that the instruments can be re-used, thus limiting the number of instruments required to be deployed to the remote site.
The authors also do not mention the fact that such a flight system can be used in Antarctica because the air space is not governed by a national air control organization, such as the FAA in the US, CASA in Australia, nor the ICAO standards for air traffic control. In locations where these rules apply, this system would not work since the UAV becomes a “piloted” aircraft above about 1000 meters, and thus would be subject to air traffic control. Once the air platform is so classified, a whole new set of requirements are faced beyond that for a free balloon.
In conclusion this paper is not really appropriate for the AMT journal. While the work is interesting, it merely builds on already established technologies, has very limited applications, and does not provide any measurements which could not be obtained by a sounding balloon, good prediction, and recovery vehicle. In addition, the predicted trajectories and the actual trajectories for the one flight recovered were significantly different with little explanation, and the one failure was not explained. From the one successful flight the authors conclude that possibly some aerosol from the Kelut eruption, in February 2014 near the equator, were sampled. The suggestion that Kelut aerosol were measured, nearly a year later over Syowa, raises many questions, none of which are discussed by the authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-234-RC2 -
EC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-234', Johannes Schneider, 04 Oct 2021
Dear authors,
as you have seen, both reviewers have several severe points of critic regarding your manuscript. I therefore discourage the submission of a revised version, because the chances that a revised version can be accepted are low.
You may try another journal, or rework the whole manuscript, taking the reviews into account and re-submit the manuscript as a new submission at a later stage.
Best regards,
Johannes Schneider
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-234-EC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 856 | 255 | 41 | 1,152 | 29 | 26 |
- HTML: 856
- PDF: 255
- XML: 41
- Total: 1,152
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
