Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think major revisions are still needed, with more discussion on concrete samples and mechanisms. The specific problems are as follows:

1. The gravity environments of the International Space Station and the Moon and Mars are completely different.So the paper should include research results from other relevant studies.
2. Since such damage does not occur when conducting the experiments manually, it is necessary to investigate possible causes and how these can be ruled out. The paper should include a detailed discussion of this part of the experimental results.
3. “This equipment is located in the tightening laboratory of Atlas Copco Tools Central Europe GmbH in Essen and is extended by suitable fixing elements”.There should be some technical documentation on  equipment here as a reference.
4. “No force was determined to be applied for the linear drive but the design of the MCM results in a movement length of approximately 85 mm, which corresponds to the distance from the floor of the mixing chamber to the storage chamber for the mixer blade”. The “85mm” is difficult to understand intuitively. Could this information be added to the diagram for better understanding?
5. “However, its fully manual operation introduced variability and required significant astronaut time”should be “astronaut’s time”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ensuring a sustainable human presence beyond Earth requires the development of insulated resource utilization (ISRU) technologies for construction, and concrete is one of the most promising candidates. The authors convincingly demonstrate that previous space experiments (ConCIM, MICS, etc.) failed to produce high-quality samples. Automating the manual process used in the previous version of MCM is a logical and critical step to eliminate operator (astronaut)-related variability and prepare for future unmanned missions.

The article is well-structured, clearly presenting the motivation and design methodology based on experimental data. The proposed mechanical assembly concept appears robust and scalable. The work has high scientific and practical value and is recommended for publication after addressing a number of issues.The study obtained results and concluded. The results were obtained, and conclusions were drawn. Suggestions for improvement are described below:

• Сlarify the abstract taking into account the results obtained;
• The purpose of the paper should be stated in the introduction;
• It is necessary to specify the positioning accuracy of linear and rotary drives;

3) Briefly explain why a stepper motor was chosen for rotation rather than the more common and more efficient brushless DC (Brushless DC) or brushed DC motor for continuous rotation;

4) A subsection describing the controller logic (e.g., which microcircuit/system it's based on) and, most importantly, the mixing algorithm (e.g., closed-loop torque/speed control, end-of-mix detection) is needed. Without this, the article is merely a description of a mechanical unit, not an "automated system;

5) It is necessary to specify the positioning accuracy of linear and rotary drives;

6) Describe the limitations of the study.

A minor revision is required.

The written English is fine.

No plagiarism was detected.

There's no conflict of interest.

The references are fine.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review comments after modification, agreed to be accepted.