Your paper has been revised and clarified to the satisfaction of the reviewers and is close to being ready for publication in ACP. There are a few minor changes recommended by the reviewers in the body of the paper which need to be addressed before final submission.

In addition, there are a couple of more substantial changes which do not affect the main content of the paper but do affect its accessibility and value to the reader.

The first is to carefully go through the paper and change "retrieve" to "calculate" for all steps that are based on direct calculation of new quantities from known ones. Use the term retrieve for situations where the statistics and sampling of observations need to be taken into account when deriving an output profile. As suggested by Reviewer 2 this is the conventional way to use these terms and not to do so causes confusion.

Reviewer 2 also suggested that Appendix A is not written clearly enough for the reader to duplicate the model. This is a necessary requirement for scientific papers and I agree with their opinion. To rectify this, I suggest adding a couple of paragraphs at the beginning of this Appendix describing how a user should approach using the MAC model and what they might use it for. As currently written, the first couple of paragraphs address details which a typical reader would initially not be familiar with. This is useful information, but only once the reader has set up the model.

Thank you for your work on revising and clarifying the paper to this point.

I thank the authors for their work on improving the clarity and readability of this paper. It is an interesting contribution to the field of nightglow studies. In addition, the reviewers provided useful and substantial suggestions for the improvement of the form of this paper and their contribution is also acknowledged.
This paper is now suitable for publication in ACP.