In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip

Really? You think we breath NITROGEN? Uh, no. We just use the
oxygen.

We use the oxygen but what we breath is 78% nitrogen.

Breathing pure oxygen is generally bad for humans.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-d...xygen-kill-you

But there is "fixed" nitrogen on Mars. Could be useful as fertilizer.
If not then the nitrogen would need to be extracted in other ways (i.e.
chemistry).

NASA's Curiosity Rover Finds Biologically Useful Nitrogen on Mars
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mars-nitrogen

Chemistry will solve many of these problems.

Doing chemistry takes lots of energy, particularly when you have to
synthesize just about everything complex.

Some Mars reference missions include a nuclear reactor so that the
return ship can produce liquid methane and LOX from the CO2 atmosphere
and H2 brought on the ship. If we end up going that route, just keep
leaving nuclear reactors on Mars brought from earth on the transport
ships.

Yes, just keep sending reactors until you have enough power, however
that is not going to be cheap.

Well, we've moved from "not possible" to "possible but not cheap".
Progress!

Jeff

Who said "not possible"?

It certainly wasn't me.

The closest thing to "not possible" I've said is that the following
are unknowns on Mars.

If water is available in quantity anywhere other than the poles.

If there are concentrated usefull mineral deposits in general and
concentrated calcium deposits in particular as all the concentrated
calcium deposits on Earth are the result of biology.


--
Jim Pennino