Dear Anonymous Referee #1. Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of this work. Please find the answers to your comments in bold print below:

Katlein describes initial coring results from attaching two ice core hand auger drill systems to manipulator arm. He shows that core retrieval can be successful and that a key aspect is keeping the coring axis stable. This is very preliminary work and is a first step towards subsea ice coring.

We thank you for assessing this work. We agree that this is “only” a first, but important step in the development of subsea robotic drilling.

I found the title to be misleading, "Towards ice core sampling by subsea robotic vehicles" - there is nothing "subsea" in the maunscript. The tests are done on a workbench with no water. A more accurate title would be "autonomous" rather than "subsea" as the manipulator arm could be mounted anywhere - on ice, in water, on the moon (mixed ice/rock), etc. Given the interest in coring on the moon, Mars, and ice moons, I'm surprised that work doesn't already exist in this area, although I admit that I am unfamiliar with it. (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00597-z).

I thank you for this suggestion, however the manuscript does not describe “autonomous” drilling, as the entire operation is directly commanded. Also – as clearly stated in the abstract- this is targeted at existing subsea technologies and the retrieval of short ice samples from sea ice or glacial ice, which is a quite different scenario to applications on Moon/Mars and beyond. The text was edited to clarify this further.

The manuscript is missing two key aspects. First, the ice core drill tests should be done in temperate ice such that meltwater can affect the coring. Mechanical coring in temperate ice is much more challenging than in cold ice. Tests should be easily performed and will allow complications of binding to be analyzed.

As the manuscript is discussing coring using a subsea vehicle from the water body underneath sea ice or glacier, meltwater is not an issue and ice temperatures will always be around the melting point, as used in the tests. A comment clarifying the ice temperatures and their effects was added to the relevant section and the discussion.

Second, the description of why subsea drilling is of interest should be greatly expanded. What is the science motivation for this? AWI is full of glaciologists of all types and I'm sure it would take little coaxing to help write a compelling introduction that addresses the sea ice, ice shelf, and iceberg scientific questions that would be addressed with subsea cores.

To further improve the motivation, some sentences and references have been added. However it was decided to limit this scientific motivation to a basic introduction, to keep the technical focus of the manuscript.

I would also like to a discussion of the challenges in stabilizing coring in a subsea environment.  Given the identified importance of keeping the coring axis unchanged, doing so with a subsea vehicle will be particularly challenging. This work should discuss a path forward for that aspect (i.e. he doesnt' need to do, but he should talk about it).

This aspect has been added to the discussion section.

With the additions of a more complete scientific introduction and the temperature ice tests (and their implications), this work will a nice contribution and starting point for subsea ice coring.

I thank you very much for this positive evaluation of this work. I added more scientific justification to the introduction. As discussed above, I am convinced, that the temperature does not influence the results in a subsea scenario where short ice samples are to be retrieved. Due to the samples being shorter than 1m no complications due to ice creep are expected and as the ice temperature is close to the seawater temperature (and usually slightly warmer) no impacts are expected.

A few other notes:

The amount of references is lacking with only 12. In addition to increasing the scientific motivation, I encourage reading the planetary literature since autonomous ice coring is a significant activity.

Several references were added, but the technical focus of the manuscript shall be reflected also in the references.

Dear James Veale. Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of this work. Please find the answers to your comments in bold print below:

General Comments

This contribution presents a novel investigation into the feasibility of sampling ice cores from beneath ice shelves. It proposes pairing traditional hand ice coring drills with underwater vehicles (ROVs and AUVs). The methodology is well described and results – although largely qualitative – are clear, as is the overall presentation of the manuscript.

I thank you very much for the constructive and positive evaluation of this work.

Although the work as described is introductory in nature, the community would benefit from its publication.  The idea is worth sharing, and the results do warrant further work in this area. I would like to see future testing with an improved setup incorporating an ROV in a test pool environment. I believe the editors of GI are best positioned to decide if the manuscript represents a substantial enough contribution to be published as a short communication or full paper.

Yes, this paper presents an introductory approach to the challenge at hand. I agree that the results are worth sharing. Opportunities for testing this approach are scarce, so we hope to distribute this idea by early publication. This might allow for faster progress, than limiting this approach to our own efforts.

I recommend the publication of this contribution, subject to fleshing out with expanded discussion and minor revisions to address the points listed below. I hope these comments will aid in its successful publication.

I tried to improve the discussion as guided by the reviewers, so hopefully the manuscript is now ready for publication.

Specific Comments

1. L.29: Evidence of prior scientific interest in sampling ice from the bottom of ice shelves is presented here, but I would like more detail of why there is scientific interest. What are we hoping to learn from these samples? Perhaps the benefit of this sampling method is the opportunity to complement other ROV-based sampling?

This section has been expanded  with added references and science cases. Still the technical focus of the manuscript is kept.

1. L.76: This is not necessarily a comparison appropriate for assessing available versus required torque. From experience, surface hand drilling requires the torque available from using two arms and would not be possible by the torque available from a single hand/wrist – this would be especially true when cutting solid ice rather than firn.

Indeed a human would not operate a coring system using just one wrist. However the resulting torque in the axis can be approximated from Literature values to compare to the torque provided by manipulator wrists, as required torque on the axis is independent on the mechanism creating it.. This was added to the text to provide better context.

1. L.128: Discussion of available wrist torque (and presentation in Table 1) is good, but it would benefit from reference to known or modelled cutting torque requirements which are available in ice coring literature. Comparing available torque to required torque provides a more robust analysis of feasibility. It would also strengthen the conclusion that commercially available manipulator arms are suitable for a coring process (L.158-159).

I added references to more torque values from the literature, both for glaciological drills as well as the required torques for human operation of coring systems. Thank you very much for these valuable pointers.

1. L.135: The discussion section could additionally benefit from discussion of drilling into salt water saturated ice. This was not tested in the described work and may have a significant impact on the drilling process, so it is worth addressing as an area where further exploration is needed.

A section discussing the effects of different ice properties on the drilling process were added to the discussion.

1. L.140: In discussion of controlling the manipulator arm, I would have expected discussion of the limitations of the experimental setup in assessing this. Strapping the arm to a rigid surface is quite different to operating on a vehicle with its own 6 degrees of freedom. Does the manipulator arm’s cartesian inverse-kinematic control account for the motion of the vehicle itself? If not, can the vehicle dynamically hold its position relative to the ice precisely enough to ensure a fixed axis of coring progression while drilling is ongoing? I do not doubt this is achievable, but it would be good to address this as a challenge in the paper.

This aspect was added to the discussion

1. L.164: The inclusion of video supplement material is excellent and benefits the contribution significantly, allowing the reader to observe the process and compare their observations to that of the paper.

We thank you for the positive evaluation. Indeed we think that a visual impression of the coring process is essential.

Technical Corrections

The following technical corrections are suggested to improve clarity of the written language.

1. L.28: Rephrase. E.g. “While obtaining ice samples starting from the top surface is a common procedure, ice sampling from the subsea environment is less common.”

Rephrased accordingly

1. L.42: Rephrase. E.g. “… only a principle of easy operation building on existing vehicle components …”

Rephrased accordingly

1. L.48: Rephrase. E.g. “As a small coring system comparable in size to a typical sediment push corer …”

Rephrased accordingly

1. L.106: This approach is commonly referred to as reducing the cutting ‘pitch’, referring to it by this name here may improve clarity.

Added the specific term

1. L.124: Rephrase. E.g. “… to limit drilling toque, and compensated by …”

Edited accordingly

1. L.130: The reader may benefit from reference to the supplied video supplement here.

Added a reference to the video material

1. L.147: What is [12] referencing - Sivčev et al., 2018b; Hildebrandt et al., 2008 ?

Corrected the reference

1. L.154: Rephrase. E.g. “… sufficient scientific value remains. Further investigation is required into how best to retrieve samples after an ROV dive, how long they can be conserved during a dive, and which processing methods must be developed to achieve this.”

Thank you for this suggestion. Corrected accordingly!

1. Table 1: Missing heading on column 2, needs column width changes and other formatting for readability, Torque units Nm not NM.

Corrected accordingly. I thank you sincerely for these comments improving the manuscript.