We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and questions on the manuscript. Some of these comments suggested the use of more recent references in the background section and we have changed the references to further reading accordingly. Many comments ask questions that indicated a need for further explanation within the text. We have responded to each of the reviewer’s comments within the attached PDF and have also updated the manuscript to preemptively address these questions for future readers by including more details and discussion.

In particular, the reviewer posed insightful questions regarding the repeatability and stability of the calibration coefficients. Some of these questions are now addressed with more detailed explanations of the testing conditions; including that the system was power cycled during data acquisition, and that the duration of data collection was of the same order as the time between calibration operations and science operations on orbit—both on the order of a few hours. The remainder of these questions are addressed in a new subsubsection within “Future work” titled “Calibration variation”. This new subsubsection discusses how AERO-VISTA may evaluate effects such as long-term drift and inter-unit variability on orbit and also describes why such measurements are not needed for ground-based validation of the AERO-VISTA magnetometer hardware and associated calibration method prior to flight of the AERO-VISTA mission.

Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, we have inserted two new figures which provide annotated pictures of the measurement device and testing setup.

We finally thank the reviewer for their detailed reading which caught several typos and awkward wordings which have all been fixed in the new manuscript version.

All of the reviewer's comments are addressed in the attached supplement PDF as replies to comments.

We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and questions on the manuscript. Thanks to the reviewer, the new version of the manuscript is much improved, particularly in references to previous works and in discussion of the limitations of our available calibration data.

In our references to work by Archer et al. and the other attitude independent calibration papers we more carefully alert the reader to the important differences between the attitude independent methods and our method which requires external attitude knowledge. We have provided a new paragraph explaining the AERO-VISTA magnetic sensor concept of operations to make this distinction clearer. We have significantly increased the explanation of our proposed calibration model to aid readers.

We agree with the reviewer’s comments which discuss the various limitations of our data collection methods. In the new version of the manuscript we more clearly explain that the intended scope of the work is a verification of hardware and calibration methodology and not the derivation of calibration parameters which will be used on orbit. The new version of the manuscript discusses the intended scope earlier in the motivation section and collects the limitations together into a new subsection (3.2 in the new version). In the discussion section we describe why, despite these limitations, the successful fitting of the x-axis of the magnetometer indicates that the pairing of instrument and model meets RMS error requirements and why the x-axis results are generalizable to the y- and z-axes.

Each of the reviewers comments are addressed individually in the attached supplementary pdf.