New Mars Forums

modified staship is also is expendable
See my thinking
Got it—so now we’re in a fully expendable stack:

Expendable carrier Starship

Expendable 6m lander

Expendable lander‑delivered reactor + bulldozer

Let’s lock where the mass budget sits under that assumption.

1. Expendable Starship → what changes for us
If Starship is expendable on this mission:

It doesn’t need:

Earth‑return TPS margin

Earth‑landing propellant

Structural life for multiple flights

Practically, that means:

More of its on‑orbit propellant can be spent on TMI and Mars capture, or

It can carry more payload mass for the same refueling effort.

For our purposes, the key effect is:

Our ~80–90t lander+bulldozer+reactor stack is now even more comfortably inside what an expendable, fully refueled Starship can throw at Mars.

We don’t need to increase payload mass—we just gain margin.

2. Current best‑guess mass budget (expendable lander + reactor)
Let’s freeze a clean design point:

Lander dry (expendable): ~40–45t

Structure, tanks, 3 Raptor‑vac‑class engines, legs, TPS, ramp, avionics

Lander propellant (EDL only): ~30–35t

No ascent/hop capability, just robust EDL + landing margin

Bulldozer: ~6t

Tele‑operated, battery‑electric, D2/D3‑class

Reactor system: ~3–4t

10–40kWe class, including shielding, radiators, structure

Misc. surface gear: ~2t

Comms mast, tools, spares, small pallets

That gives: ? total ≈ 81 – 92 t

Call it ~90t to Mars as a round design number.

For an expendable, fully refueled Starship, that’s very plausible with margin.

3. Architecture summary in this expendable world
Launch:

Expendable cargo Starship (possibly stretched) launches with the 6m lander inside, mostly dry.

LEO refueling:

Tanker flights refuel Starship.

Lander is filled with ~30–35t methalox via internal plumbing.

TMI:

Expendable Starship spends whatever prop it needs to send ~90t to Mars.

At Mars:

Lander separates, performs EDL and landing.

Starship can:

Aerobrake and be abandoned in some orbit, or

Follow a disposal trajectory—either way, it’s not coming home.

Surface:

Lander is static infrastructure.

Ramp drops, bulldozer deploys.

Reactor is deployed/towed to a safe standoff distance and charges the dozer indefinitely.

Dozer builds and maintains Starship pads.

the lander is expendable and solar could be swapped with kilowatt reactor to charge the bull dozer as required.

See my thinking

Good—making the lander expendable and giving the dozer a kilowatt‑class reactor instead of solar actually simplifies the architecture and tightens the role of each element.

Here’s how that changes the picture.

1. Expendable lander: what we can strip out
If the lander never has to move again after touchdown:

No ascent/hop capability:

We only size propellant for EDL + landing, not for any Mars ascent.

No reuse margins:

Structural life can be single‑use with safety margin, not multi‑mission.

No need for precision refuel interfaces on Mars:

All refueling happens in Earth orbit; on Mars it’s a dead‑end asset.

That lets us:

Keep dry mass around 40–45t instead of creeping higher for reusability.

Keep propellant around 30–40t (robust EDL, no ascent).

Stay in the ~80–90t total band including the bulldozer and reactor.

2. Swapping solar for a kilowatt‑class reactor
Instead of a big solar farm:

Reactor power level:

Think 10–40kWe continuous, not megawatts.

Enough to slow‑charge the bulldozer between work shifts and run comms, heaters, and local systems.

Mass:

A compact fission system in that range is plausibly 2–5t including radiator, shielding, structure.

Location:

Either:

Mounted on the lander deck with a deployable mast to move it away from the hull, or

Delivered as a separate pallet that the bulldozer drags to a standoff distance.

You’ve effectively turned the lander into:

A one‑time delivery bus for:

Bulldozer

Reactor

Maybe a small comms mast and local infrastructure

Once empty, the lander is just a tower and structural anchor.

3. Bulldozer + reactor operational concept
Day 0–1:

Lander touches down.

Ramp drops, bulldozer drives out.

Reactor is deployed to a safe distance (towed or on its own mobility base).

Ongoing:

Bulldozer works in duty cycles:

Work for a few hours → return to charging point → repeat.

Reactor provides:

Charging power

Heat for local equipment

Stable power for comms and sensors

No dependence on dust‑sensitive solar, no need for huge arrays before Starship arrives.

4. Updated mass picture (first‑pass)
Rough design point with expendable lander + reactor:

Lander dry: ~40–45t

Propellant (EDL only): ~30–35t

Bulldozer: ~6t

Reactor system: ~3–4t

Misc. surface gear: ~2t

Total to Mars: ≈ 81 – 92 t
Still inside a ~100t Starship‑to‑Mars envelope, with some margin.

I wanted to look at a Falcon 9 first stage redesigned for a mars descent landing so that we can land a bull dozer modified for mars to level a landing surface for starship

Here’s where this gets fun,  — because a Falcon9 first stage can be re‑imagined as a Mars‑descent lander, but only if we treat it as a completely different vehicle that merely borrows the F9 geometry and tankage. And for your purpose — delivering a Mars‑rated bulldozer to grade a Starship landing zone — the redesign becomes a very elegant engineering exercise.

Below is a clean, structured breakdown of what a “Falcon‑9‑derived Mars Descent Lander” would actually look like and how it would operate.

? Falcon 9 First Stage — Mars Descent Lander Concept
Purpose: Deliver a modified Mars bulldozer to prepare a Starship landing pad
1. Baseline Constraints of Falcon 9 First Stage
The real F9 booster is:

Height: ~42m

Diameter: 3.66m

Dry mass: ~22–25t

Propellant: ~410t LOX/RP‑1

Engines: 9 Merlin 1D (sea level)

None of this works on Mars as‑is. 
The engines, propellant, landing legs, avionics, and structural margins all fail in Mars EDL conditions.

So we treat the F9 first stage as a structural shell and tank volume, then redesign everything else.

2. Redesign Requirements for Mars Landing
To land a bulldozer, the vehicle must:

A. Survive hypersonic entry
Add a full-width 3.66m ablative heat shield on the base

Add deployable body flaps or grid fins sized for Mars’ thin atmosphere

Reinforce the LOX tank bulkhead for heating loads

Add a top aeroshell fairing enclosing the bulldozer

B. Provide Mars‑rated retropropulsion
Merlin engines cannot ignite on Mars:

RP‑1 cokes

Turbopumps not designed for low ambient pressure

No ignition reliability in CO₂ atmosphere

Solution: Replace with:

3–4 methane/oxygen engines (Raptor‑derived or SuperDraco‑scaled methalox engines)

Throttle range: 20–100%

Total thrust needed: ~600–800kN in Mars gravity

C. Provide wide‑stance landing legs
A 3.66m cylinder is too tall and narrow.
We need:

6–8 deployable legs

6–8m diameter footprint

Crush‑core pads for uneven terrain

Optional: auger‑tip legs (your tent‑peg idea) to anchor in regolith

D. Deliver a bulldozer
A Mars bulldozer is:

Mass: 2–6t depending on design

Needs dust‑proof hydraulics

Needs electric or methalox power

Needs a ramp or crane to deploy

So the upper section becomes:

A payload bay

With a side‑deploying ramp

Or a winch‑crane system

3. Internal Layout (Top‑Down)
Upper Section (Payload Bay)
Diameter: 3.66m

Height: 6–8m

Contains bulldozer secured with hardpoints

Side hatch + deployable ramp

Pressurized avionics bay above payload

Mid Section (LOX Tank)
Retains cylindrical tank

Methalox mixture ratio ~3.6:1

LOX tank above methane tank for stability

Lower Section (Methane Tank + Engines)
Methane tank replaces RP‑1 tank

Engine bay with 3–4 methalox engines

Heat shield integrated around engine skirt

4. Mars EDL Sequence
1. Entry
Vehicle enters base‑first

Heat shield absorbs ~1.5–2.5MW/m²

Body flaps maintain attitude

2. Supersonic retropropulsion
Engines ignite at ~Mach 2–3

Vehicle slows to subsonic

3. Terminal landing burn
3‑engine burn → 1‑engine hover‑slam

Landing legs deploy

Touchdown at <1m/s

4. Bulldozer deployment
Vehicle tilts slightly using legs

Ramp deploys

Bulldozer drives out

Vehicle becomes a static power tower or communications mast

5. Payload Capacity Estimate
A Falcon‑9‑derived lander could deliver:

To Mars Surface
3–6t bulldozer

Plus ~1–2t of auxiliary equipment

Total landed mass: 5–8t

This is enough for:

A compact bulldozer

A regolith scraper

A blade‑equipped rover

Or a small autonomous grader

6. Why This Is Useful for Starship
Starship needs:

A flat pad

Compacted regolith

No large rocks

No slopes >5°

Your bulldozer lander becomes the first surface‑prep asset, arriving before the first crewed Starship.

This is exactly the kind of system that makes a Starship landing zone safe and repeatable.

7. If you want, I can produce next:
A blueprint‑style top‑down layout of the redesigned booster

A cutaway diagram showing tank and payload arrangement

A Mars bulldozer design sized to fit inside the 3.66m fairing

A landing sequence diagram

A mass budget for the entire lander

A site‑prep workflow for building a Starship landing pad

Just tell me which direction you want to push this design next.

Raptor engines for vacumn seems the right path for the engine replacement
See my thinking
You’re thinking in the right direction—Raptor‑class methalox is exactly the family you want. Using vacuum Raptors (or Raptor‑vac–derived engines) for a Falcon‑9‑derived Mars lander actually lines up with several of your needs:

Why Raptor‑vac (or vac‑derived) makes sense
Methalox commonality with Starship:

Fuel: CH₄/LOX matches Starship ISRU plans.

Your bulldozer, power systems, and later surface assets can all be designed around the same propellant ecosystem.

High Isp in thin atmosphere:

Mars’ atmosphere is thin enough that a vacuum‑optimized nozzle works well for most of descent.

You get higher Isp than a sea‑level engine, which directly improves landed mass for the same tank volume.

Deep throttling for terminal descent:

Raptor‑class engines are designed with significant throttle range.

For Mars, you want:

Multi‑engine ignition for redundancy and high‑g braking.

Ability to drop to single‑engine low‑thrust for the last ~100–200m.

Supersonic retropropulsion heritage:

Starship’s Mars EDL concept is built around supersonic retropropulsion with Raptors.

Reusing that logic on a smaller, F9‑sized lander keeps the architecture coherent.

Design tweaks for using Raptor‑vac on a 3.66m stage
Engine count and clustering:

Likely 3 Raptor‑vac–derived engines in a tight cluster.

Outer diameter of nozzles will dominate the base geometry; you may need:

Slightly truncated nozzles, or

1 full‑vac + 2 “mid‑expansion” engines for better gimbal and clearance.

Heat shield integration:

Base heat shield must be annular around the engine cluster.

Engines are protected behind a deployable or sacrificial skirt during peak heating, then exposed for retroprop.

Landing leg geometry:

Legs attach to the interstage/engine section ring outside the nozzle circle.

You want a 6–8m footprint, so legs must fold up along the tank and swing out wide.

Operational logic with Raptor‑vac
Entry:

Base‑first, shielded, no engines exposed.

Supersonic retropropulsion:

Skirt opens or ablates away.

3 Raptors ignite, high thrust, high Isp, rapid decel.

Subsonic/terminal:

Drop to 1 engine, deep throttle.

Use gimbal + body flaps for attitude.

Land at <1m/s.

If you like this direction, next we can:

Rough out a mass budget for a 3‑Raptor‑vac Mars lander based on F9 geometry, or

Lay out a plan view of the engine bay + leg attach points, or

Size the bulldozer mass and dimensions that still close the propellant budget.

Which of those do you want to lock in first?

show design for increasing diameter so that rocket gets shorter
See my thinking
You’re going after exactly the right instinct here—make it fatter and shorter so it’s more stable, easier to land, and can actually house a meaningful bulldozer. Let’s turn the Falcon‑9‑derived Mars lander into a “stubby” methalox lander and walk through a clean redesign.

1. New overall geometry
Let’s pick a concrete target so we can reason clearly:

Diameter: 6m (up from 3.66m)

Total height: ~24m (down from ~42m)

Aspect ratio: 4:1 instead of ~11:1 → much more stable on legs

Payload bay internal diameter: ~5.5m

Payload bay height: 6–8m

This keeps it big enough to carry a serious bulldozer, but compact enough to land without feeling like a pencil on stilts.

2. High‑level stack layout
From top to bottom:

Payload bay (bulldozer compartment)

LOX tank

CH₄ tank

Engine bay + base heat shield

Landing legs attached around lower tank section

A simple side view (not to scale, but to orient thinking):

      ┌───────────────────────┐
      │   Payload bay         │  ← Bulldozer + ramp
      │   (5.5 m ID, 6–8 m)   │
      └─────────┬─────────────┘
                │
      ┌─────────┴─────────────┐
      │       LOX tank        │
      │       (~6–7 m)        │
      └─────────┬─────────────┘
                │
      ┌─────────┴─────────────┐
      │      CH₄ tank         │
      │      (~5–6 m)         │
      └─────────┬─────────────┘
                │
      ┌─────────┴─────────────┐
      │  Engine bay + heat    │
      │  shield (3 Raptors)   │
      └───────────────────────┘
         /   /   /   /   /
        /   /   /   /   /   ← Wide landing legs (8–10 m footprint)

3. Engine and base redesign
With a 6m diameter, you can comfortably cluster 3 Raptor‑vac–derived engines:

Engine circle:

1 center engine

2 or 3 around it (you can choose 3 or 4 total depending on thrust needs)

Nozzle clearance:

6m base gives room for large expansion ratios without clipping the legs

Heat shield:

Circular base shield with cutouts or a central opening for the engine cluster

Engines recessed slightly into the shield cavity for better protection during entry

This geometry also makes it easier to:

Integrate thicker leg attach points into the lower skirt

Route methane and LOX feedlines with more gentle bends and better insulation

4. Landing leg geometry and stability
With a 6m body, you can push the leg footprint out to 9–10m:

Leg count: 4 or 6

Footprint radius: 4.5–5m

Tip‑over angle:

For a 24m tall vehicle and 10m footprint, the tip‑over angle is much improved vs a tall 3.66m stack.

You can also lower the center of mass by:

Keeping the bulldozer as low as possible in the bay

Using the LOX tank above CH₄ (denser fluid higher, but still below payload)

You can also integrate:

Crush‑core pads for rocks

Optional auger‑style feet to bite into regolith if you want semi‑permanent anchoring

5. Payload bay and bulldozer envelope
With a 6m outer diameter:

Internal diameter: ~5.5m (allowing for structure + insulation)

Usable height: 6–8m

That gives you a bulldozer envelope roughly:

Width: up to ~4.5–5m

Height: up to ~3m

Length: aligned with the axis, up to ~5–6m

Deployment options:

Side ramp:

A large side door in the payload bay wall

Ramp folds down to the surface

Vehicle can kneel slightly on one side using leg actuators to reduce ramp angle

End‑on deployment:

Bulldozer nose toward the side door

Drive straight out and down

6. Mass and performance intuition
By going wider and shorter:

Structural mass fraction improves

Shorter tanks → less bending moment → lighter structure for same loads

Landing stability improves

Lower center of mass, wider stance

Payload bay becomes actually useful

You can realistically land a 5–8t bulldozer plus support gear

At a high level, a 6m‑diameter, 24m‑tall methalox lander with 3 Raptor‑vac–class engines can plausibly:

Land ~10–15t total payload on Mars (depending on exact tankage and staging)

Dedicate 5–8t of that to the bulldozer and pad‑building equipment

7. Where we can go next
If you want to tighten this up, we can:

Lock in exact dimensions for a 6m or 7m version (height, tank lengths, bay height).

Do a first‑order mass budget: dry mass, prop mass, landed payload.

Sketch a plan view of the engine bay and leg attach points.

Or design the bulldozer itself to fit this 5.5m internal diameter.

Which one do you want to nail down first—the exact geometry of the lander, or the bulldozer envelope?

is there a way to lower the payload so that the out shell can be used as a drop ramp to get the bull dozer to the surface
See my thinking
Yes—there’s a very clean way to do this: treat the lower side of the payload shell as a hinged clamshell that becomes the ramp, and deliberately mount the bulldozer as low as possible in the stack so it’s almost at ground level when you land.

Here’s a concrete version that works with the stubby 6m‑class lander we just sketched.

1. Lowering the payload inside the stack
Goal: put the bulldozer’s wheels/tracks only a few meters above the surface at touchdown.

Payload bay position:

Instead of sitting entirely above the LOX tank, the bulldozer bay overlaps the upper tank section.

You create a “saddle” structure around the upper LOX tank dome so the bulldozer can sit lower in the vehicle.

Internal deck:

A structural payload deck is placed just above the methane tank dome.

Bulldozer is hard‑mounted to this deck during flight.

Resulting height:

Bulldozer floor might be only 4–5m above the ground when landed, instead of 8–10m.

Very rough side view:

      ┌───────────────────────┐
      │  Upper payload shell  │
      │   (avionics, etc.)    │
      ├────────────┬──────────┤
      │  Bulldozer │          │  ← Bulldozer sits in a “saddle” around LOX dome
      │   bay      │          │
      └───────┬────┴──────────┘
              │  Payload deck  ← as low as possible
      ┌───────┴───────────────┐
      │        LOX dome        │
      │        CH₄ tank        │
      └────────┬──────────────┘
               │ Engine bay

2. Using the outer shell as a drop ramp
Now we turn part of the cylindrical shell into the ramp itself.

Clamshell segment:

Take a ~90–120° arc of the lower payload shell on one side.

Hinge it along the bottom edge, just above the leg attach ring.

During entry:

This shell segment is fully closed, forming part of the aeroshell.

It carries TPS on the outside and structural stiffeners inside.

After landing:

Internal latches release.

Hydraulic actuators or screw jacks rotate the shell outward and downward until it rests on the surface as a ramp.

So the “wall” of the lander becomes the ramp.

3. Making the ramp actually usable
To make that ramp workable for a bulldozer:

Kneeling the lander:

Use landing leg actuators to lower the vehicle slightly on the ramp side, reducing ramp angle.

Ramp geometry:

Length of the shell segment: full height of the bulldozer bay (say 5–6m).

When rotated down, that gives you a long, shallow ramp.

Ramp surface:

Inside of the shell is pre‑equipped with:

Traction ribs or grating

Side curbs to prevent slipping off

Transition lip:

The payload deck has a small hinged lip that folds down to bridge any gap between deck and ramp.

Sequence:

Land.

Verify stability, kneel slightly toward ramp side.

Vent/depressurize bay if needed.

Release latches, swing shell down into ramp position.

Deploy deck lip.

Bulldozer drives straight out and down.

4. Structural and EDL considerations
Strength during entry:

The clamshell/ramp segment must be fully locked into a ring frame so it behaves like a normal fuselage panel under aero and thermal loads.

Hinge and latch design:

Hinges at the bottom are massive, simple, and shielded from direct heating.

Latches at the top and sides carry most of the hoop load during flight.

Dust and sealing:

Use labyrinth seals and TPS blankets along the seams.

You don’t need it airtight for crew—just structurally continuous and thermally protected.

5. Why this is a good fit for your bulldozer mission
You get a very low‑complexity deployment: no cranes, no elevators.

The outer shell does double duty: aeroshell in flight, ramp on the ground.

By lowering the bulldozer bay around the tank dome and kneeling the lander, you can get the effective ramp angle into a comfortable range for a heavy tracked vehicle.

If you want, next we can:

Fix exact dimensions for the ramp segment and deck height, or

Define a bulldozer size and mass that fits this bay and can handle Mars regolith pad‑building.

is there a battery telerobotic operated bull dozer in the size mass that seems to fit the bay
Absolutely — a battery‑electric, tele‑operated bulldozer does exist today in sizes that fit beautifully inside the 5.5m‑diameter payload bay we designed. Even better, several commercial platforms are already close to Mars‑ready with only moderate modification.

Let me walk you through the realistic candidates and how they map to your lander’s payload envelope.

? 1. Real‑world electric bulldozers that already fit the bay
A. Built Robotics / CAT D3‑class autonomous dozer
Mass: ~8,000–9,000kg

Width: ~2.5–2.7m

Height: ~2.8m

Length: ~4.5m

Power: Electric or hybrid conversions exist

Control: Fully tele‑operated or autonomous

Fit check: 
✔ Fits easily inside a 5.5m diameter bay
✔ Fits inside a 6–8m tall bay
✔ Mass is within the 5–8t landed payload target
✔ Tracks and blade geometry ideal for Mars regolith leveling

This is the closest “off‑the‑shelf” Mars bulldozer candidate.

B. Small dozer platforms (D1/D2 class) with electric retrofit
Mass: 4,000–6,000kg

Width: 1.8–2.3m

Height: 2.3–2.6m

Length: 3.5–4.0m

These are even easier to fit and leave more margin for batteries, spares, and tools.

Fit check: 
✔ Fits with huge margin
✔ Mass is ideal for early pad‑building
✔ Lower center of gravity → safer deployment down the ramp

C. Construction‑robotics platforms (Built Robotics, SafeAI, Teleo)
These companies already convert small and mid‑size dozers and loaders into tele‑operated or fully autonomous machines.

Mass: 3–8t

Power: Battery‑electric or hybrid

Control: Remote tele‑operation with low‑latency autonomy stack

Sensors: LIDAR, stereo cameras, radar — all Mars‑compatible with dust‑proofing

Fit check: 
✔ Perfect for a Mars lander bay
✔ Already designed for remote operation
✔ Already ruggedized for dust and vibration

? 2. Battery capacity and Mars suitability
A Mars bulldozer doesn’t need to run continuously — it needs to:

Clear rocks

Level regolith

Compact a landing pad

Prepare a Starship touchdown zone

A realistic battery pack:

Energy: 150–300kWh

Mass: 1–2t

Runtime: 4–8 hours of heavy work

Recharge: From solar farm or methalox generator

This is completely feasible inside your lander’s payload mass budget.

? 3. How it fits inside your redesigned lander
Your 6m‑diameter, 24m‑tall lander gives:

Internal diameter: ~5.5m

Usable height: 6–8m

Payload deck height: ~4–5m above ground at landing

Ramp: 90–120° clamshell segment

A 4–5t or 6–8t bulldozer fits with:

Plenty of side clearance

Enough overhead clearance for blade tilt

Room for battery packs, spares, and a tele‑op control module

?️ 4. Tele‑operation on Mars
Tele‑operation is straightforward because:

You don’t need real‑time control

You can use semi‑autonomous routines:

Blade leveling

Path following

Rock pushing

Compaction passes

Latency from orbiting relay satellites is trivial for this kind of work.

✔ Conclusion: Yes — a battery, tele‑operated bulldozer absolutely fits.
The best match is a CAT D1/D2/D3‑class electric bulldozer or a Built Robotics autonomous dozer, all of which:

Fit the 5.5m internal diameter

Fit the 6–8m height

Fit the 4–8t mass range

Are already tele‑operable

Can be ruggedized for Mars with modest changes

Boeing Starliner has faced multiple, distinct valve issues that delayed its crewed flight tests. Problems included corrosion-induced oxidizer valve failures in 2021 and an oscillating, potentially life-expired oxygen relief valve on the Atlas V rocket in May 2024. These issues required valve replacements, redesigns, and caused significant mission delays.
SpaceNews
SpaceNews
+3
Key details regarding the Starliner valve issues:
2021 Valve Failures (Orbital Flight Test-2): Thirteen valves in the service module failed to open due to moisture reacting with propellant, causing corrosion. Boeing replaced the valves and modified the system to prevent water intrusion.
2024 Valve Issues (Crew Flight Test): A, 2024, launch attempt was scrubbed due to a buzzing, oscillating oxygen valve on the Centaur upper stage of the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket.

Concerns and Disagreements: ValveTech, a former contractor, warned that the 2024 valve might have exceeded its 200,000-cycle life.

However, ULA and NASA dismissed these concerns, stating the valve was not leaking but merely oscillating.
Helium Leaks: During the June 2024 crewed mission, the Starliner capsule experienced helium leaks related to its propulsion system and thruster issues.
Resolution: For the 2021 issues, Boeing and NASA worked together to remediate the valves through mechanical, electrical, and thermal techniques. In 2024, the problematic valve was replaced.

The persistent valve issues, along with other technical problems, led to significant delays and over $1 billion in extra costs for Boeing.