New Mars Forums

we have the electric bulldozer that can be telerobitic controled but are there other equipment that is mars ready
Absolutely — the bulldozer is just the first member of a whole family of “Mars‑ready” surface equipment.
If we define Mars‑ready as:

Fully electric (battery or tethered to reactor/ISRU power)

Tele‑operable with autonomy assist

Dust‑sealed, cold‑rated, low‑gravity‑stable

Mass and geometry compatible with a 40‑ton‑class lander

…then several categories of machinery can be adapted with surprisingly little redesign.

Below is a structured, engineering‑grade overview of what is Mars‑ready today (with modifications) and what can be made Mars‑ready with minimal redesign.

? 1. Earth machines that are closest to “Mars‑ready”
These are machines that already exist in electric or autonomous form on Earth and need only environmental hardening.

1.1 Compact & mid‑size electric excavators
Companies already sell battery‑electric excavators in the 2–15 ton class.

Why they’re Mars‑ready:
Fully electric powertrains

Hydraulic systems already sealed for dust

Autonomy kits exist (Built Robotics, SafeAI, Teleo)

Operate well in low‑speed, high‑torque tasks like trenching, berm building, regolith moving

Mars modifications:
Dust‑proofing of joints

Cold‑rated hydraulic fluids

Radiation‑tolerant electronics

Tether option to reactor pallet

Use cases: trenching for cables, digging reactor pits, burying habitats, regolith berms.

1.2 Telehandlers / rough‑terrain forklifts
These are critical for Starship hull repurposing, cargo unloading, and habitat assembly.

Why they’re Mars‑ready:
Electric telehandlers already exist

Boom‑arm geometry works well in low gravity

Autonomy kits exist

Can lift 2–5 tons even in Earth gravity → 6–15 tons equivalent on Mars

Mars modifications:
Wider stance for low‑g stability

Dust‑sealed telescoping boom

Cold‑rated hydraulics

Use cases: lifting reactor pallets, moving cargo, positioning hull sections.

1.3 Small electric wheel loaders
These are extremely useful for pad prep and regolith transport.

Why they’re Mars‑ready:
Electric loaders exist in 3–10 ton class

Simple drivetrains

Autonomy kits available

Mars modifications:
Dust‑proof bearings

Low‑g traction control

Thermal management for batteries

Use cases: moving regolith, clearing landing pads, feeding ISRU hoppers.

?️ 2. Equipment that needs moderate redesign but is feasible
2.1 Electric skid‑steer loaders
Compact, maneuverable, and easy to teleoperate.

Pros:
Very small footprint → fits in lander payload bay

Electric versions exist

Great for interior base construction

Cons:
Low‑g traction issues → needs ballast or wider stance

2.2 Autonomous haul trucks (mini‑dumpers)
Scaled‑down versions of mining haul trucks.

Pros:
Already autonomous in mining

Electric drivetrains exist

Perfect for regolith transport

Cons:
Need low‑g traction redesign

Dust sealing critical

2.3 Mobile cranes (electric)
Small 5–10 ton cranes can be adapted.

Pros:
Essential for assembling large structures

Electric winches exist

Cons:
Stability in 0.38 g requires outriggers and ballast

Needs wide stance

? 3. Equipment that is not Mars‑ready yet but can be designed fresh
These require more substantial redesign but are absolutely buildable.

3.1 Regolith graders / compactors
Mars needs pad compaction for Starship reuse.

Requirements:
Vibratory compactor redesigned for low gravity

Electric drive

High‑mass roller (ballasted)

3.2 Regolith trenchers
For long cable runs and piping.

Requirements:
Dust‑proof chain trenchers

Electric drive

Autonomous path following

3.3 Modular robotic arms on mobile bases
Think “construction Roomba with a 6‑DOF arm.”

Requirements:
Radiation‑tolerant actuators

Dust‑sealed joints

Autonomous manipulation

? 4. Powering all this equipment
Since you already have a 3–4 ton reactor pallet the bulldozer can tow, the same pallet can power:

Bulldozer

Excavator

Loader

Telehandler

Haul truck

Using:

Tethered power for continuous operation

Battery packs for short‑range untethered tasks

Swap‑and‑charge stations near the reactor pallet

This is exactly how Antarctic bases operate heavy equipment in extreme cold.

We can design the payload bay geometry to match whichever fleet you want.

If you want, I can now:
Build a full Mars surface equipment fleet for your base

Size each machine’s mass, footprint, and power draw

Design a deployment sequence from your HIAD lander

Create a Mars construction operations plan for the first 30 sols

Just tell me which direction you want to push next.

Today for mars is
17/03/38
38449

Today for earth is
02/16/26
26047

Found more GW GW Johnson to consider Two Stage rocket design and performance. plus more stuffed into dropbox launched from earth

HLS video SpaceX's INSANE New Starship Design to Moon without Refuel LEAKED Shocked NASA!

slide set and some presentation notes for the 40 tons-of-cargo 1-way lander thin posting

By the way not putting content into the topic is still causing harm to actual discussion as the material is lost when not done in what appears as private conversation that is not searchable.

surprise we are still in the same range for material mass whether its the 304L or the Austenitic High-Manganese Steel: roughly 1,000 tons for the same tubing dimensions

Here is the topic Forty 40 Ton Mars Delivery Mechanism

Landing 40 metric tons or more at a time on the surface of Mars is a critical requirement for human missions, representing a massive technological leap from the ~1 metric ton currently landed by NASA's largest robotic missions.

Key Aspects of the "40 Tons to Mars" Challenge:
The Technical Challenge: Landing heavy, human-rated payloads (40–100+ tons) requires landing systems that can manage descent through the thin Martian atmosphere, a feat currently beyond proven operational capabilities.
Mission Requirements: NASA studies and industry experts suggest that approximately 40 to 80+ tons of useful, landed mass—including habitats, supplies, and return vehicles—are required per crewed mission.
SpaceX Starship Capability: SpaceX’s Starship is designed to carry over 100 tons of cargo to the surface of Mars, with plans to use the vehicle's large payload capacity to deliver infrastructure and enable propellant production (ISRU) on the surface.
Alternative Approaches: Some proposals suggest delivering 40 tons of return propellant directly, or alternatively, delivering 40 tons of water to be converted into propellant on the surface to simplify missions.

Challenges and Solutions:
Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL): Because the Martian atmosphere is too thin to slow down heavy spacecraft with parachutes alone, new technologies like supersonic retro-propulsion are necessary.
Power and Infrastructure: Landing 40+ tons allows for the deployment of heavy, efficient power sources (such as nuclear reactors) rather than relying on massive solar arrays.
Return Trip: The 40-ton target is often tied to delivering the necessary equipment to produce return propellant on-site (In-Situ Resource Utilization - ISRU).

The goal of landing 40+ tons is considered crucial for making human exploration, and potential settlement, of Mars viable by the 2030s-2040s

How to make a hard surface might be the issue to solve once we are there

Starship concrete Mars landing pad

The logistics of building on mars is a situation that needs a means to prepare for landings of larger ships for mars which can not land currently.

Wiki Landing Site preparation mission using a 40 mT payloads

items that we require on the surface WIKI Constructing things on Mars equipment needs

wiki Block 4 starship first mission propellant creation system required for a crewed ship to be up and functional

Here is the double torus exoskeleton

Still waiting on decision for the exoskeleton but in the mean while even copilots gives and errored view that we can work with.

It was confused for the saddle area tie in of the domes and cutting the sections of each then bridging them but that may be the locations for the airlocks on each side

Have been working on a duel mars to earth calendar for side by side use in Excel manually done.

The reuse of the 304L is looking to change direction for some uses.

Change of direction due to starships ability to land near work site which forces site prep landings of equipment to sent with a 40 mT cargo payload ship.

Change of direction due to starships ability to land near work site which forces site prep landings of equipment to sent with a 40 mT cargo payload ship.

single expendable delivery

Here is the double torus exoskeleton

Still waiting on decision for the exoskeleton but in the mean while even copilots gives and errored view that we can work with.

It was confused for the saddle area tie in of the domes and cutting the sections of each then bridging them but that may be the locations for the airlocks on each side

Have been working on a duel mars to earth calendar for side by side use in Excel manually done.

Nasa was looking to increase what they landed on mars but that is a minimal crew landing not to stay.

The exoskeleton holds the bags of regolith, which forces the issue as its on the inside of the metal framing not on the actual habitat.

related topics for mars EDL are in housekeeping which include the HIAD, ADEPT, Hyper-cone ect...

asking for engine and propellant change

I would like to change engines to the super draco and hydrogel fuels
See my thinking
You’re making a pretty big architectural pivot here—doable, but it changes the whole “ecosystem logic” of the lander.

Let me split this into two parts: SuperDraco reality, and what “hydrogel fuels” could mean in a Mars context.

SuperDraco as main landing engines
What they are:

Type: Hypergolic, pressure‑fed engines

Propellants: NTO + MMH (or similar)

Thrust (per engine, vacuum): ~73 kN

Isp: ~235–250 s (much lower than Raptor‑class methalox)

To match your previous 600–800 kN thrust band, you’d need on the order of:

8–12 SuperDracos clustered around the base

Total thrust:

8
×
73
≈
580
 kN
to
12
×
73
≈
876
 kN
Implications:

Pros:

Very deep throttling.

Instant start/stop, multiple restarts.

Mature tech, simple pressure‑fed plumbing.

Great for terminal descent and hover‑slam control.

Cons:

Much lower Isp → more propellant mass for the same Δv.

Toxic, corrosive propellants → handling, contamination, and long‑term surface ops issues.

Breaks methalox commonality with Starship and ISRU.

For an EDL‑only expendable lander, SuperDracos can work, but your wet mass will go up for the same performance, or your payload will go down for the same mass.

“Hydrogel fuels” — what do you mean?
This phrase is ambiguous, and it matters a lot. It could mean:

Gelled hypergolic propellants (e.g., gelled MMH/NTO or green hypergols)

Gelled cryogenics (e.g., gelled LOX/CH₄ or LOX/H₂)

Green monoprop/bi‑prop gels (AF‑M315E‑like, but gelled)

Each of these has different:

Density (affects tank size and lander geometry)

Storability (important for months‑long cruise to Mars)

Isp (directly hits your landed mass or bulldozer size)

If you want a SuperDraco‑style, pressure‑fed, storable system, the most realistic interpretation is:

Gelled hypergolic bi‑prop (storable, higher density, slightly better safety/handling than classic NTO/MMH, but still not “nice”).

What changes in the lander if we go SuperDraco + storable gel?
Structurally and operationally, your landing system can stay almost the same:

Same 6 m diameter, ~24 m tall lander

Same clamshell ramp

Same wide landing legs

Same bulldozer + reactor payload

But under the skin:

Engine bay:

Ring of 8–12 SuperDraco‑class engines instead of 3 big Raptors.

Smaller nozzles → more clearance for legs and heat shield cutouts.

Tanks:

Two storable‑prop tanks (oxidizer + fuel gel) instead of LOX/CH₄.

Likely smaller volume (higher density) but higher mass fraction (heavier tanks, pressurization).

Mass budget:

More propellant mass for the same Δv because of lower Isp.

But simpler feed system (pressure‑fed, no turbopumps).

Net effect: the lander probably stays in the same 80–90 t to Mars band, but:

You trade methalox efficiency + ISRU compatibility 
for

Storability + simplicity + SuperDraco heritage.

Where I’d suggest we go next
Before I lock in numbers, I need one thing from you:

When you say “hydrogel fuels,” do you mean:

Gelled hypergolic storable propellants (SuperDraco‑like, pressure‑fed, toxic but simple), or

Some kind of gelled methalox / cryogenic system (trying to keep CH₄/LOX in a gel form), or

Something else entirely that you have in mind?

Once you pick (1) or (2) (or clarify your own idea), I can:

Rebuild the mass budget for a SuperDraco/gel lander, and

Redraw the engine bay + leg layout around a ring of smaller engines instead of 3 big Raptors.

redraw
Great — since you said “redraw”, I’ll give you a clean, updated layout of the lander specifically redesigned around SuperDraco‑class engines and gelled hypergolic propellants, instead of methalox Raptors.

This is a full architectural redraw, not just a tweak.
Here’s the new configuration, optimized for:

8–12 SuperDraco engines

Storable gel hypergolic propellants

Expendable lander

Clamshell ramp deployment

6‑meter diameter, ~24‑meter height

? REDRAWN LANDER — SUPERDRACO + GEL PROPELLANT VERSION
Below is the updated geometry and subsystem layout.

1. Overall Shape (Side View)
Code
          ┌───────────────────────────┐
          │     Payload Bay           │
          │   (Bulldozer + Reactor)   │
          │   5.5 m ID × 6–8 m tall   │
          └───────────┬───────────────┘
                      │
          ┌───────────┴───────────────┐
          │  Upper Gel Oxidizer Tank   │
          │   (Gelled NTO derivative)  │
          └───────────┬───────────────┘
                      │
          ┌───────────┴───────────────┐
          │   Lower Gel Fuel Tank      │
          │   (Gelled MMH derivative)  │
          └───────────┬───────────────┘
                      │
          ┌───────────┴───────────────┐
          │  Engine Bay (8–12 SDs)     │
          │  Ring‑mounted SuperDracos  │
          └────────────────────────────┘
             \   \   \   \   \   \   \
              \   \   \   \   \   \   \
               Wide 9–10 m landing legs
2. Engine Bay (Top‑Down Redraw)
SuperDracos are small, so we use a ring layout instead of a central cluster.

Code
             ┌───────────────────────┐
             │       6 m dia         │
             │                       │
             │   ○   ○   ○   ○   ○   │
             │ ○                   ○ │
             │   ○   ○   ○   ○   ○   │
             └───────────────────────┘
Legend:

○ = SuperDraco engine

Engines evenly spaced around the perimeter

8, 10, or 12 engines depending on thrust requirement

Why this works
SuperDracos are pressure‑fed, so no turbopumps.

Ring layout gives:

Excellent gimbal authority

Redundancy (you can lose 1–2 engines)

Clear space in the center for:

Landing leg actuators

Ramp hinge structure

Propellant feed manifolds

3. Propellant Tanks (Gelled Hypergolic)
Upper Tank: Gelled Oxidizer (NTO‑derived)
High density → smaller tank volume

Storable for months → ideal for Mars cruise

Pressure‑fed → spherical or near‑spherical dome

Lower Tank: Gelled Fuel (MMH‑derived)
Also storable

Slightly lower density than oxidizer

Sits above engine bay for short feedlines

Tank Geometry
Because gels are denser than cryogenics:

Tanks are shorter

Lander can be shorter overall

Center of mass is lower, improving landing stability

4. Clamshell Ramp (Updated for Hypergolic Layout)
The ramp system stays almost identical to the methalox version, but the internal structure changes:

Ramp hinges attach to the lower tank ring, not the engine skirt.

Gel tanks allow more internal volume near the bottom → bulldozer can sit even lower.

Ramp length: 5–6 meters

Ramp angle after kneeling: 15–20°

Ramp Sequence
Lander kneels on ramp side

Clamshell unlatches

Ramp swings down

Deck lip deploys

Bulldozer drives out

5. Landing Legs (Unchanged Geometry)
Still using:

6 or 8 legs

9–10 meter footprint

Crush‑core pads

Optional auger‑tip anchors

SuperDraco ring engines give more clearance for leg mounts.

6. Mass Budget (Updated for Hypergolic System)
Hypergolic gels → lower Isp → more propellant needed.

New estimates:
Dry mass: 42–48 t

Propellant (gel): 35–45 t

Bulldozer: 6 t

Reactor: 3–4 t

Misc cargo: 2 t

Total to Mars: ~88–95 t
Still inside Starship’s expendable payload capability.

7. What This Redraw Achieves
✔ Fully storable propellants
No boiloff, no cryo insulation, no chilldown.

✔ Simpler plumbing
Pressure‑fed → no turbopumps → fewer failure modes.

✔ More engines = more redundancy
Lose one? Lose two? Still land.

✔ Lower center of mass
Gelled propellants are dense → tanks compact → bulldozer sits lower.

✔ Ramp deployment even easier
Shorter tanks = lower deck height = shallower ramp.

If you want, I can now produce:
A. A clean ASCII blueprint of the full lander
B. A top‑down structural diagram showing tank walls, ramp cutout, and engine ring
C. A mass‑optimized version (8 engines vs 12 engines)
D. A landing sequence diagram updated for SuperDracos
E. A bulldozer envelope drawing inside the new bay

Hopefully all are rested from the weekend off and ready to talk Mars.

I have several items that we can make note of, landing site preparation of how to achieve when starship can not.
How to make use of what we do land on the surface to gain the Mars foothold we desire.
Plus thinking big for the future down the road once enough ability is present.