New Mars Forums

So what's stopping man from being on mars has to do with more than cash.

Why we are not going to Mars

1.    LOX/CH4 "can't deliver the mass" problem not because LOX/CH4 is incapable—it's because: is physically viable, but operationally expensive Cryogenic storage over long durations is hard (boiloff, insulation, active cooling). ISRU plants to make enough LOX/CH4 are heavy and power-hungry. A LOX/CH4 system big enough to land a heavy payload and then send it back is huge. When you size it honestly (EDL + ISRU + ascent), the mass and power spiral is brutal.

2.    "Why hypergolic 'SRI-J is chemically possible, but infrastructure-heavy not just partially import hypergolics?"
•    Import one component (e.g., MMH/UDMH)
•    Try to make only the oxidizer (NTO) or vice versa
•    Making NTO on Mars still needs a serious chemical plant (nitric acid, high-purity nitrogen, oxidation, distillation).
•    Making hydrazine or methylated hydrazines is even worse—dangerous, complex, and infrastructure-heavy.
•    If you import both NTO and MMH, you're back to: c Huge landed mass c Bigger EDL system c Bigger launch vehicle from Earth

3.    So what's the real issue with LOX/CO new engine development + lower performance. LOX/CO looks attractive on paper because: Both 02 and CO can be made directly from C02 (no hydrogen needed). That simplifies ISRU: just C02 + power + high-temp electrolysis.
A.    No heritage means years and a lot of money.
    There are no flight-proven LOX/CO engines.
  Full engine development program
  Ground test campaigns o Reliability and ignition testing tn Mars-like conditions o Then qualify it for a critical ascent mission
B.    Lower performance
    CO has lower specific energy than CH4.
    LOX/CO tsp is typically -280-300 s, vs -360 s tor LOX/CHa.
    That means more propellant mass for the same Av heavier MAV * harder ED L.

C.    Combustion and cooling challenges   CO/02 combustion has:

Different flame temperature and kinetics than CH4/02 
Potential combustion stability issues that need real testing.
Cooling and materials choices that aren't off-the-shelf.

D. Still cryogenic (or high-pressure) o CO boils at æ81 K, 02 at 90 K—both are still cryogenic.

Store them as cryogenic Liquids (boiloff, insulation, power) c As high-pressure gases (heavy tanks, lower density, more volume).

LOX/CO doesn't magically escape the storage problem—it just trades hydrogen logistics for

4.    The core of what you're seeing
    LOX/CH4: ISRU-friendly, high performance, but cryogenic and infrastructure-heavy.
    Hypergolics: Great performance, storable, but must be mostly or fully imported.    
        LOX/CO: ISRU-simple, but no engines, lower performance, still cryogenic/HP.

Trying to do without prefilling of numbers being generated making use of excel and auto fill to do my best

starting post is carried from the previous days 3-09-2026 last number for the day 238451 - last post 238473

3-10-26 postings

WIKI Constructing things on Mars equipment needs

Forty 40 Ton Mars Delivery Mechanism
Forty 40 Ton Mars Delivery Mechanism
Forty 40 Ton Mars Delivery Mechanism
Forty 40 Ton Mars Delivery Mechanism
Forty 40 Ton Mars Delivery Mechanism

Wiki Toehold Mission
Wiki Toehold Mission
Wiki Toehold Mission
Wiki Toehold Mission
Wiki Toehold Mission

Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.
Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

Jevons Paradox and Social Amplifiers and Reach
Jevons Paradox and Social Amplifiers and Reach
Jevons Paradox and Social Amplifiers and Reach

Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...

Bipolar Mars Terraform Plan

Starship is Go...

GW Johnson Postings and @Exrocketman1 YouTube videos

WIKI Constructing things on Mars equipment needs

Wiki Landing Site preparation mission

How to deliver Mars cargo to the surface that's been delivered to orbit in the Cargo Bus

Mars EDL Architecture: HIAD-Only, Retroprop-Scaled, Two-Lander System
This is the cleaned, consolidated version of the system you are designing:
• No parachutes
• HIAD-only aero deceleration
• Retroprop engines sized to payload mass
• Two independent landers inside a 12 m x 30 m aerobrake bus
• PICA-X thickness adjusted per mission mass
• Payload mass directly drives heating, TPS thickness, and propellant needs
1. Aerobrake Bus (12 m × 30 m)
Geometry
• Diameter: 12 m
• Length: 30 m
• Entry attitude: broadside / belly-first
• TPS: PICA-X monolithic belly, thickness adjusted per mission
• Control: 4 large flaps + RCS
• Role: remove the majority of entry energy, deliver landers to a slower regime

Mass
• Structure + flaps: 20–24 t
• PICA-X belly (single-use): 5.5–6 t
• Avionics + RCS: ~1 t
• Total bus mass: 26–30 t

Function
The bus replaces the traditional backshell + parachute system.
It provides:
• Very low ballistic coefficient
• Controlled lift vectoring
• Gentle heating environment for the landers
• A common entry vehicle for multiple mission profiles
2. Two Independent Landers Inside the Bus
Each lander is a complete system:
• 12 m HIAD (no parachute)
• Retroprop engines sized to lander mass
• Telescoping landing legs
• Exhaust shielding
• Integrated structure (no sky crane)
• Cygnus-class payload module inside

Typical Lander Mass Target: 30 t
Breakdown:
• Cygnus-like payload module (full): ~7 t
• Engines: 1–1.5 t
• Tanks + feed system: 2–3 t
• Landing propellant: 10–12 t
• Structure + legs: 5–6 t
• Avionics + shielding: ~1 t

Total per lander: 30 t
Two landers = 60 t inside the bus.
3. HIAD Only Deceleration (No Parachutes)
Each lander uses a 12 m HIAD:
• Area: ~113 m²
• CD ~1.5
• Ballistic coefficient for a 30 t lander:
  β ≈ 177 kg/m² (Mars-friendly)

The HIAD handles:
• Hypersonic deceleration
• Supersonic deceleration
• Subsonic stabilization

No parachutes are used.
4. Retropropulsion Scaled to Payload Mass
After HIAD deceleration, each lander performs:
• Terminal retropropulsion
• Hover
• Translation
• Soft touchdown

Propellant mass scales directly with:
• Lander mass
• Required Δv
• Engine ISP

More payload → more propellant → higher total mass → higher β → thicker TPS.
This is the core mass spiral.
5. Why This Architecture Works
Advantages
• Two complete landers delivered in one entry vehicle
• No parachutes (removes a major failure mode)
• HIAD-only simplifies staging and reduces mass overhead
• Retroprop engines integrated into the lander (no crane)
• Bus provides a common aero solution for multiple missions
• PICA-X thickness can be tuned per mission mass

Scalability
• Full-mass mission: two 30 t landers
• Partial-mass mission: one full + one light lander
• Bus TPS thickness adjusts to total entry mass
• HIAD size remains fixed at 12 m for each lander
6. What You Gain Compared to NASA’s Current Method
NASA today:
• One payload per aeroshell
• Parachutes required
• Sky crane required
• ~1 t landed mass

Your architecture:
• Two landers per entry
• No parachutes
• No crane
• 30 t per lander
• HIAD + retroprop only
• Scalable to human-class missions
7. Summary (Forum Ready)
Aerobrake Bus: 12 m × 30 m, 26–30 t, PICA-X belly, 4 flaps
Landers: Two independent 30 t units
Deceleration: HIAD-only, no parachutes
Landing: Retroprop engines sized to payload mass
Payload: Cygnus-class module per lander (~7 t real cargo)
Flexibility: Full or partial mass missions with only TPS thickness changes
Capability: 60 t total landed mass per entry event

Here is the list and shape that we are forced to use.

Caterpillar Electric Prototypes
Cat 301.9 Electric
(Dimensions match diesel 301.9 platform; electric variant uses same chassis)
Length: 3,840 mm / 151 in
Width: 990 mm / 39 in
Height: 2,300 mm / 91 in
Operating Weight: 2,000 kg / 4,400 lb

Cat 320 Electric
(Electric prototype uses 320 chassis dimensions)
Length: 9,400 mm / 370 in
Width: 2,990 mm / 118 in
Height: 3,160 mm / 124 in
Operating Weight: 22,000 kg / 48,500 lb

Cat 950 GC Electric (Prototype)
(Electric prototype uses 950 GC chassis dimensions)
Length: 6,180 mm / 243 in
Width: 2,410 mm / 95 in
Height: 3,330 mm / 131 in
Operating Weight: 18,800 kg / 41,450 lb

Cat 906 Electric
(Electric prototype uses 906 chassis dimensions)
Length: 5,040 mm / 198 in
Width: 1,870 mm / 74 in
Height: 2,680 mm / 105 in
Operating Weight: 5,730 kg / 12,630 lb

Bobcat Electric Machines
Bobcat T7X (Electric Track Loader)
Length: 3,600 mm / 142 in
Width: 1,800 mm / 71 in
Height: 2,080 mm / 82 in
Operating Weight: 5,710 kg / 12,590 lb

Bobcat S7X (Electric Skid Steer)
(Dimensions match S770 frame)
Length: 3,500 mm / 138 in
Width: 1,800 mm / 71 in
Height: 2,080 mm / 82 in
Operating Weight: 3,900 kg / 8,600 lb

Bobcat E10e (Electric Micro Excavator)
Length: 2,820 mm / 111 in
Width: 710–1,100 mm / 28–43 in
Height: 2,210 mm / 87 in
Operating Weight: 1,200 kg / 2,650 lb

Bobcat E19e (Electric Mini Excavator)
Length: 3,830 mm / 151 in
Width: 980 mm / 39 in
Height: 2,300 mm / 91 in
Operating Weight: 1,916 kg / 4,225 lb

Volvo Electric Machines
Volvo ECR18 Electric
Length: 3,430 mm / 135 in
Width: 995–1,352 mm / 39–53 in
Height: 2,298 mm / 91 in
Operating Weight: 1,790–1,870 kg / 3,950–4,120 lb

Volvo EC18 Electric
Length: 3,550 mm / 140 in
Width: 995–1,352 mm / 39–53 in
Height: 2,300 mm / 91 in
Operating Weight: 1,960 kg / 4,321 lb

Volvo L20 Electric (Compact Wheel Loader)
Length: 5,265 mm / 207 in
Width: 1,740 mm / 69 in
Height: 2,580 mm / 102 in
Operating Weight: 4,500 kg / 9,920 lb

Volvo L25 Electric (Compact Wheel Loader)
Length: 5,265 mm / 207 in
Width: 1,740 mm / 69 in
Height: 2,580 mm / 102 in
Operating Weight: 5,000 kg / 11,000 lb

Volvo EC230 Electric (Medium Excavator)
Length: 9,700 mm / 382 in
Width: 2,990–3,090 mm / 118–122 in
Height: 3,100 mm / 122 in
Operating Weight: 23,000–26,100 kg / 50,600–57,500 lb

Here is the list and shape that we are forced to use.

Caterpillar Electric Prototypes
Cat 301.9 Electric
(Dimensions match diesel 301.9 platform; electric variant uses same chassis)
Length: 3,840 mm / 151 in
Width: 990 mm / 39 in
Height: 2,300 mm / 91 in
Operating Weight: 2,000 kg / 4,400 lb

Cat 320 Electric
(Electric prototype uses 320 chassis dimensions)
Length: 9,400 mm / 370 in
Width: 2,990 mm / 118 in
Height: 3,160 mm / 124 in
Operating Weight: 22,000 kg / 48,500 lb

Cat 950 GC Electric (Prototype)
(Electric prototype uses 950 GC chassis dimensions)
Length: 6,180 mm / 243 in
Width: 2,410 mm / 95 in
Height: 3,330 mm / 131 in
Operating Weight: 18,800 kg / 41,450 lb

Cat 906 Electric
(Electric prototype uses 906 chassis dimensions)
Length: 5,040 mm / 198 in
Width: 1,870 mm / 74 in
Height: 2,680 mm / 105 in
Operating Weight: 5,730 kg / 12,630 lb

Bobcat Electric Machines
Bobcat T7X (Electric Track Loader)
Length: 3,600 mm / 142 in
Width: 1,800 mm / 71 in
Height: 2,080 mm / 82 in
Operating Weight: 5,710 kg / 12,590 lb

Bobcat S7X (Electric Skid Steer)
(Dimensions match S770 frame)
Length: 3,500 mm / 138 in
Width: 1,800 mm / 71 in
Height: 2,080 mm / 82 in
Operating Weight: 3,900 kg / 8,600 lb

Bobcat E10e (Electric Micro Excavator)
Length: 2,820 mm / 111 in
Width: 710–1,100 mm / 28–43 in
Height: 2,210 mm / 87 in
Operating Weight: 1,200 kg / 2,650 lb

Bobcat E19e (Electric Mini Excavator)
Length: 3,830 mm / 151 in
Width: 980 mm / 39 in
Height: 2,300 mm / 91 in
Operating Weight: 1,916 kg / 4,225 lb

Volvo Electric Machines
Volvo ECR18 Electric
Length: 3,430 mm / 135 in
Width: 995–1,352 mm / 39–53 in
Height: 2,298 mm / 91 in
Operating Weight: 1,790–1,870 kg / 3,950–4,120 lb

Volvo EC18 Electric
Length: 3,550 mm / 140 in
Width: 995–1,352 mm / 39–53 in
Height: 2,300 mm / 91 in
Operating Weight: 1,960 kg / 4,321 lb

Volvo L20 Electric (Compact Wheel Loader)
Length: 5,265 mm / 207 in
Width: 1,740 mm / 69 in
Height: 2,580 mm / 102 in
Operating Weight: 4,500 kg / 9,920 lb

Volvo L25 Electric (Compact Wheel Loader)
Length: 5,265 mm / 207 in
Width: 1,740 mm / 69 in
Height: 2,580 mm / 102 in
Operating Weight: 5,000 kg / 11,000 lb

Volvo EC230 Electric (Medium Excavator)
Length: 9,700 mm / 382 in
Width: 2,990–3,090 mm / 118–122 in
Height: 3,100 mm / 122 in
Operating Weight: 23,000–26,100 kg / 50,600–57,500 lb

Sounds like they are trying to get rid of the standing support army concept as well, to go down the path of commercial industry.

CYGNUS‑TO‑MARS SURFACE MODULE — ENGINEERING CONVERSION SPEC
1. Base Structure
Starting point: Northrop Grumman Cygnus PCM (Pressurized Cargo Module)

Modifications for Mars:
Reinforced pressure shell (2× safety factor for burial loads)
External regolith‑anchor hardpoints
Dust‑proofed hatches and seals
Thermal insulation for −120°C nights
Integrated skirt for partial burial
Replaceable micrometeoroid shield with regolith‑compatible armor

2. Environmental Control & Life Support (ECLSS)
ISS‑heritage racks adapted for Mars:
CO₂ scrubbers (amine‑swing or LiOH backup)
O₂ storage tanks
Water recycling (ISS‑derived WRS)
Humidity control
Air circulation fans rated for dusty environments
Emergency O₂ candles
Mars‑specific additions:
Dust‑exclusion vestibule
External air intake for ISRU oxygen feed
Thermal loop compatible with reactor heat rejection

3. Power & Thermal Systems
ISS heritage:
120 VDC bus
Modular power distribution units

Mars upgrades:
External reactor interface (SAFE‑400 / Kilopower)
Radiator panels with dust‑shedding coating
Battery racks (LiFePO₄ or Na‑ion)
Solar pallet connectors
Thermal mass integration for buried operation

4. Mobility & Landing Adaptation
Cygnus is not designed to land — so the Mars version is:
Mounted inside a lifting‑body aeroshell
Equipped with crushable landing legs
Designed for horizontal landing orientation
Includes regolith‑compatible access ramps

5. Internal Layout Options
Each Cygnus‑Mars module can be configured as:

A. Habitation Module
bunks
galley
hygiene
medical bay
water recycling

B. ISRU Module
MOXIE‑class O₂ production
Sabatier reactor
CO₂ compressors
electrolysis stack
methane/O₂ storage

C. Power Module
reactor interface
battery racks
switchgear
radiator controls

D. Greenhouse Module
hydroponics racks
LED arrays
nutrient tanks
humidity control

E. Utility / Workshop Module
EVA airlock
machining tools
welding gear
teleoperation consoles
3D printer (low‑energy use only)

6. Surface Integration
Each module includes:
buried‑operation thermal skirt
regolith berm anchor points
tunnel connectors (inflatable or rigid)
utility ports (power, water, O₂, data)
external robotic arm interface

7. Mass & Volume
Dry mass: 4.5–5.5 tonnes
Fully outfitted: 6–7.5 tonnes
Delivered inside lander: 8–10 tonnes including aeroshell
Fits within:
Starship cargo bay
Blue Moon cargo lander
Mars lander concepts (10–15 t class)

Cygnus‑to‑Mars Conversion Spec (Surface‑Rated ISS‑Heritage Modules)
To make the toehold feel real, each pressurized module delivered to Mars is based on a Cygnus‑class ISS cargo module, modified for surface operations.

1. Structural Modifications
Reinforced pressure shell for burial loads
Dust‑proofed hatches and seals
Thermal insulation for −120°C nights
Regolith‑anchor hardpoints
Replaceable micrometeoroid shield with regolith‑compatible armor

2. Life Support Integration
ISS‑heritage systems adapted for Mars:
CO₂ scrubbers
O₂ storage
Water recycling
Humidity control
Dust‑exclusion vestibule
External ISRU oxygen feed

3. Power & Thermal
SAFE‑400 / Kilopower interface
Radiator panels with dust‑shedding coating
Battery racks
Solar pallet connectors
Thermal mass integration for buried operation

4. Landing Adaptation
Horizontal landing orientation
Crushable landing legs
Lifting‑body aeroshell
Regolith‑compatible access ramps

5. Internal Configurations
Each Cygnus‑Mars module can be configured as:
Habitation Module
ISRU Module
Power Module
Greenhouse Module
Utility / Workshop Module

6. Surface Integration
Tunnel connectors
Utility ports (power, water, O₂, data)
External robotic arm interface
Regolith berm anchor points

7. Mass & Volume
6–7.5 tonnes outfitted
8–10 tonnes delivered with aeroshell
Compatible with 10–15 t Mars landers

Battery‑Electric Prototypes (Bauma 2022)

• Cat 301.9 Electric

  • Type: Mini excavator

  • Status: Prototype, fully battery‑powered

• Cat 320 Electric

  • Type: Medium excavator

  • Status: Prototype, closest to Mars‑scale digger

• Cat 950 GC Electric Wheel Loader

  • Type: Wheel loader

  • Status: Prototype, high‑power earth‑moving

• Cat 906 Electric

  • Type: Compact wheel loader

  • Status: Prototype, light construction

Are any Caterpillar machines “Mars‑ready”?

• Extreme‑cold battery chemistry needed

• Full dust‑proofing for Martian regolith

• Radiation‑hardened electronics

• Lightweight redesign for launch mass limits

• Solar/nuclear charging infrastructure

8×8 CONEX Internal Dimensions

• Width: ~92 in

• Height: ~94 in

• Length: ~19 ft 4 in

Caterpillar Electric Machines vs 8×8 Fit

• Cat 301.9 Electric

  • Width: ~39 in

  • Height: ~90 in

  • Fits 8×8: YES

• Cat 906 Electric

  • Width: ~70 in

  • Height: ~98 in

  • Fits 8×8: NO (too tall)

• Cat 320 Electric

  • Width: ~102 in

  • Height: ~118 in

  • Fits 8×8: NO

• Cat 950 GC Electric Wheel Loader

  • Width: ~112 in

  • Height: ~138 in

  • Fits 8×8: NO

Cat 301.9 Electric — The Only One That Fits

• Width: 39 in

• Height: ~90 in

• Length: ~12 ft

• Capabilities:

  • Light excavation

  • Trenching

  • Regolith handling

  • Teleoperation (Caterpillar Command)

• Limitations:

  • Not for heavy earth‑moving

  • Not for bulldozing

  • Not for large‑scale site prep

Cat 906 Electric — Too Tall

• Width fits

• Height fails by ~4 in

• Could fit with cab removal or redesign

Cat 320 Electric — Too Wide & Too Tall

• Width: 102 in (fails)

• Height: 118 in (fails)

Cat 950 GC Electric — Far Too Large

• Width: 112 in

• Height: 138 in

Implications for Mars Construction

• Only the 301.9 fits stock

• All larger Caterpillar electrics exceed 8×8 constraints

Your Options

• 1. Multiple Cat 301.9 units

  • Distributed digging

  • Easy to ship

  • Easy teleoperation

  • Low mass

• 2. Custom Caterpillar‑style chassis

  • Cab removed

  • Fold‑down ROPS

  • Narrow‑track variants

  • Modular boom assemblies

• 3. Flat‑pack approach

  • Ship components inside CONEX

  • Assemble on Mars with robotics

• 4. Use Caterpillar Command autonomous tech

  • Proven in remote, dusty, hazardous sites

  • Ideal for Mars teleoperation

Summary Table (Clean)

• Cat 301.9 Electric

  • Fits: YES

  • Notes: Only electric Cat that fits stock

• Cat 906 Electric

  • Fits: NO

  • Notes: Too tall by ~4 in

• Cat 320 Electric

  • Fits: NO

  • Notes: Too wide & tall

• Cat 950 GC Electric

  • Fits: NO

  • Notes: Far too large

Bobcat Electric Machines vs 8×8

• T7X (Track loader)

  • Width: ~68 in

  • Height: ~80 in

  • Fits: YES

• S7X (Skid steer)

  • Width: ~68 in

  • Height: ~80 in

  • Fits: YES

• E10e (Micro excavator)

  • Width: 28–44 in

  • Height: ~87 in

  • Fits: YES

• E19e (Mini excavator)

  • Width: ~39 in

  • Height: ~90 in

  • Fits: YES

Volvo Electric Machines vs 8×8

• ECR18 (Mini excavator)

  • Width: ~39 in

  • Height: ~90 in

  • Fits: YES

• EC18 (Mini excavator)

  • Width: ~39 in

  • Height: ~90 in

  • Fits: YES

• L20 Electric (Compact wheel loader)

  • Width: ~63 in

  • Height: ~98 in

  • Fits: NO (too tall)

• L25 Electric (Compact wheel loader)

  • Width: ~63 in

  • Height: ~98 in

  • Fits: NO (too tall)

• EC230 (Medium excavator)

  • Width: >100 in

  • Height: >110 in

  • Fits: NO

Battery-Electric Prototypes (Bauma 2022)
Source: Caterpillar press release
Model    Type    Status Notes
Cat 301.9 Electric Mini excavator    Prototype Fully battery-powered
Cat 320 Electric    Medium excavator    Prototype Closest to a Mars-scale digger
Cat 950 GC Electric Wheel loader    Prototype High-power earth-moving
Cat 906 Electric     Compact wheel loader Prototype Light construction
These machines use Caterpillar's new Li-ion battery packs and onboard chargers. They are designed for construction sites on Earth, not extreme environments.
Are any Caterpillar machines "Mars-ready"?

Not yet. Even the electric prototypes would need major upgrades:
What's missing:
•    Extreme cold battery chemistry   Full dust-proofing for Martian regolith
•    Radiation-hardened electronics
•    Lightweight design for launch mass limits
•    Solar/nuc[ear charging infrastructure
NASA's telerobotics studies (e.g., ATHLETE, RASSOR) show the direction, but Caterpillar hasn't built a Mars-rated machine.
Dimensions of an 8x8 CONEX Box (Internal)
A standard     (actually 8x8x20) container has:
•    Interior width: 42 in (7.7 ft)   Interior height: æ94 in (7.8 ft)
•    Interior length: N19 ft 4 in
Your limiting factors are width and height.
Caterpillar Electric Machines (from the Caterpillar electric lineup)
These are the four battery-electric machines Caterpillar has publicly demonstrated.
Model    Type    Width Height Fits in 8x8?
Cat 301.9 Electric Mini excavator    N39 in N90 in YES
Cat 906 Electric    Compact wheel loader    in æ98 in NO (too tall)
Cat 320 Electric    Medium excavator    in     in NO
Cat 950 GC Electric Wheel loader    M 12 in M38 in NO
Only the Cat 301.9 Electric fits inside an 8x8 container without modification.
Cat 301.9 Electric — Fits
This is the only Caterpillar electric machine that meets your dimensional constraints.
Why it fits:
    Width: 39 in (3.25 ft)
    Height: —90 in (7.5 ft)
    Length: æl 2 ft (well within 20 ft container)
What it can do:
    Light excavation      Trenching
    Regolith handling
    Teleoperation possible (Caterpillar Command compatible with small machines)
What it cannot do:
    Heavy earth-moving
    Bulldozing
    Large-scale site prep
This machine is a starter robot, not a base-building workhorse.
2. Cat 906 Electric — Too Tall
    Width: æ70 in (fits)
    Height: —98 in (8.16 ft) fails height limit bY N4 inches
Could it be modified to fit? Possibly — if the cab is removed or redesigned. But stock? No.
3. Cat 320 Electric —Too Wide & Too Tall
    Width: 102 in (8.5 ft) + fails
    Height: 118 in (9.8 ft) * fails
This is a serious excavator, but it's not container-friendly.
  4. Cat 950 GC Electric — way Too Big
    Width: 112 in
    Height: 138 in
This is a non-starter for containerized transport.
    What This Means for Mars Construction    
If you want real earth-moving capability inside an footprint, Caterpillar's current electric lineup is too large except for the mini-excavator.
Your options:
1 . Use multiple Cat 301.9 Electric units   Good for distributed digging
  Easy to ship
  Easy to teleoperate
         Low mass
2.    Request Caterpillar-style custom chassis o Cab removed
  Fold-down ROPS
  Narrow-track variants
  Modular boom assemblies
3.    Use a "flat-pack" approach
  Ship components in the CONEX
o Assemble on Mars with robotic assistance
4.    Use Caterpillar's autonomous mining tech (Command)
c Already proven in remote, dusty, dangerous environments c Perfect for Mars teleoperation
Summary Table (Clean & Direct)
Model    Fits 8x8? Notes
Cat 301.9 Electric YES    Only electric Cat that fits stock
Cat 906 Electric    NO    Too tall by rv4 in
Cat 320 Electric    NO    Too wide & tall
Cat 950 GC Electric NO    Far too large
If you want, I can also:
    Build a Mars-optimized Caterpillar-style excavator concept
    Show how to modify the 906 Electric to fit inside an
    Compare Caterpillar vs. Bobcat vs. Volvo electric machines for container fit
    Design a multi-robot Mars construction fleet using only container-shippable equipment
Just tell me which direction you want to take this.
Bobcat electric machines vs 8x8 (width/height only)
Model Type    Width (in) Height (in) Fits 8x8?
T7X    Track loader    N68    N80    YES
S7X    Skid steer         -80    YES
    Micro excavator 28—44    m87    YES
    Mini excavator æ39        YES
All four Bobcat electrics are under 8 ft wide and under 8 ft tall, so they pass your 8x8 face constraint.
Volvo electric machines vs 8x8 (width/height only)
Model    Type    Width (in) Height (in) Fits 8x8?
ECR18    Mini excavator        YES
EC18    Mini excavator    N90    YES
L20 Electric Compact wheel loader N63        NO (too tall)
L25 Electric Compact wheel loader æ63    N98    NO (too tall)
EC230    Medium excavator    > 100    > 110    NO

Trying to do without prefilling of numbers being generated making use of excel and auto fill to do my best

starting post is carried from the previous days 3-07-2026 last number for the day 238433 - last post 238442

3-8-26 postings

Bipolar Mars Terraform Plan

Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...

Google Meet Collaboration - Meetings Plus Followup Discussion
Google Meet Collaboration - Meetings Plus Followup Discussion
Google Meet Collaboration - Meetings Plus Followup Discussion

Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

Mars Direct 3 is a Mars mission architecture developed by Miguel Gurre
Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day
Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day

Mars Direct 3 is a Mars mission architecture developed by Miguel Gurre

Fixing the boiloff means adding mass and power requirements to perform the task.

An important step even for starship current systems.

thanks for the reminder as the computer is not on a network to do automatic update.