So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed

I was a non tubber once me self ,Till I found a warmer climate 

Quote from: guv on August 11, 2014, 03:07:35 AM

Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.

Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing  down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">       

It is pretty important to note the assumptions the video makes and also to note that we do not know if it is true. Was the vehicle coming over the horizon?  We don't know. Or was it that the vehicle became distinguishable from its plume?  We don't know.

You should really question the spoon fed bull crap you are served.

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 04:08:59 AM

Quote from: guv on August 11, 2014, 03:07:35 AM

Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.

Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing  down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">       

It is pretty important to note the assumptions the video makes and also to note that we do not know if it is true. Was the vehicle coming over the horizon?  We don't know. Or was it that the vehicle became distinguishable from its plume?  We don't know.

You should really question the spoon fed bull crap you are served.

Its footage of a documented world land speed record. It wasn't shot for any other purpose then to record the event  . What's your problem ,cant come to terms when faced with reality.     

Reads like a made up character assassination to me Geoff .

I agree Charles.  Only one problem; it's not "made up".  Anders Bjorkman is a well-known fraudster and liar.

He and his "theories" have all been totally debunked at THIS site—the JREF Forum.

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 01:57:53 AM

Reads like a made up character assassination to me Geoff .

I agree Charles.  Only one problem; it's not "made up".  Anders Bjorkman is a well-known fraudster and liar.

He and his "theories" have all been totally debunked at THIS site—the JREF Forum.

well I ran Anders Bjorkman name in the sites search. Nothing came up .Could you direct me to the particular page, that provides the debunking. 

Quote from: Rama Set on August 11, 2014, 05:35:40 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 04:08:59 AM

Quote from: guv on August 11, 2014, 03:07:35 AM

Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.

Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing  down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">       

It is pretty important to note the assumptions the video makes and also to note that we do not know if it is true. Was the vehicle coming over the horizon?  We don't know. Or was it that the vehicle became distinguishable from its plume?  We don't know.

You should really question the spoon fed bull crap you are served.

Its footage of a documented world land speed record. It wasn't shot for any other purpose then to record the event  . What's your problem ,cant come to terms when faced with reality.     

Thanks for totally missing the point.  Who other than the person making the FE aviation video said that car was coming over the horizon?  I do not see any reason to assume that that is what was happening in the video, and it was stated that it was an assumption.  If that is not true, the entire debunking falls apart.

My take is that the car was not over the horizon, and was not distinguishable from the dust plume behind it.  Considering both the vehicle and the dust plume have some heavy gray tinting in the footage, I think my explanation is much more likely.

If I am to assume that the vehicle is cresting the horizon, then why does the video poster ignore all the frames as the car gets apparently bigger and bigger and just skip right to when it is "fully visible"?  As to the dust plume, why is an exact mirror image out of place, when there is an obvious mirage in place?

The video is crap no matter how you look at it.

Well I ran Anders Bjorkman name in the sites search. Nothing came up .Could you direct me to the particular page, that provides the debunking.

This link lists some of the forum entries about Bjorkman:  http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=anders+bjorkman

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 11, 2014, 04:51:35 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 04:08:59 AM

Quote from: guv on August 11, 2014, 03:07:35 AM

Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.

Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing  down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">       

Piss off with the 911 crap charlie, there are loads of other forums for morons to talk about that drivel.

Take it up with your mate Geoff he dragged it in to the thread . Ya soft cock retarded American.

Apparently CB has a problem talking to guys that don't have a boner for him. 

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 04:59:06 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 11, 2014, 04:51:35 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 04:08:59 AM

Quote from: guv on August 11, 2014, 03:07:35 AM

Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.

Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing  down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">       

Piss off with the 911 crap charlie, there are loads of other forums for morons to talk about that drivel.

Take it up with your mate Geoff he dragged it in to the thread . Ya soft cock retarded American.

Apparently CB has a problem talking to guys that don't have a boner for him. 

Now that is funny. lol Yes I'm gay ,I'v been a lesbian my whole life. 

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 08:17:38 AM

Well I ran Anders Bjorkman name in the sites search. Nothing came up .Could you direct me to the particular page, that provides the debunking.

This link lists some of the forum entries about Bjorkman:  http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=anders+bjorkman

What a bunch of loses bag him out on a forum.Huh dont see your point Geoff.  His not a civil engineer. His a maritime engineer. Does that make him a fraud ?   

Everybody, please stop making personal attacks.  Thanks. 

Quote from: Rama Set on August 10, 2014, 06:37:05 AM

It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.

LOL after  23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.

So what is the problem with the space shuttle losing 3 of its 5 engines at 23 miles? Are you sure the other 3 engines can't get it to escape velocity?

Maybe to help you understand rockets you could buy Kerbal Space Program. It's on Steam. This way you could launch your own rockets and see why multiple stage setups work better.

Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.

Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top. 
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!

Quote from: Shmeggley on August 10, 2014, 12:32:44 AM

Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.

Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top. 
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!

There are some residents of NYC who would be inclined to disagree with you and possibly punch you in the face. Maybe you'd like to visit some of the witnesses and demand that they swear on a bible that they actually saw what they say they did?

Quote from: Shmeggley on August 10, 2014, 12:32:44 AM

Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.

Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top. 
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!

I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.

And so why are you arguing that the Moon is too hot for astronauts? Didn't you just say they never went there?

But if you want to go that route fine. Are you really saying that it's impossible to insulate something for 200 C? I can take a hot dish out of a 200C oven with nothing but my silicone rubber oven mitts, which don't melt at that temperature. The space suits had considerably more protection. I don't see what the problem is here.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 10, 2014, 06:37:05 AM

It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.

LOL after  23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.

What?  Why?  Gravity gets weaker as you get further away from the Earth.  You could decrease acceleration at a certain point and make it there; doubly so because of the gravitational pull of the moon which will dominate the tidal force at a certain distance. 

I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory, but you have no idea what you are talking about.  You seem to be throwing darts at a dartboard blind-folded hoping you hit a bullseye.

The blindfolded dart throwing, or shotgun approach, they're all part of Thread Derailing 101. Possibly the only class Charles ever passed.

Quote from: Shmeggley on August 10, 2014, 12:32:44 AM

Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.

Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top. 
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!

I can put my hand 1 cm from an oven that is at 1000 degrees C. Believe it or not there are things called heat shields. 
As for the rest of your post. You sure like to live in a fantasy world. You apparently have 1 million euros in it. I bet you could run into sceptic in your world.

The blindfolded dart throwing, or shotgun approach, they're all part of Thread Derailing 101. Possibly the only class Charles ever passed.

Isn't  Thread Derailing 101 taught by the eminent Professor Jroa ?

Quote from: Shmeggley on August 10, 2014, 12:32:44 AM

Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.

Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top. 
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!

Bollocks.

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 12:56:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 10, 2014, 06:37:05 AM

It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.

LOL after  23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.

So what is the problem with the space shuttle losing 3 of its 5 engines at 23 miles? Are you sure the other 3 engines can't get it to escape velocity?

Maybe to help you understand rockets you could buy Kerbal Space Program. It's on Steam. This way you could launch your own rockets and see why multiple stage setups work better.

Fuel !!! The amount required  where is it ? & where is the large tank that is  required ?

The fuel is in that big tank.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 11, 2014, 10:54:37 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on August 10, 2014, 12:32:44 AM

Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.

Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top. 
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!

I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.

And so why are you arguing that the Moon is too hot for astronauts? Didn't you just say they never went there?

But if you want to go that route fine. Are you really saying that it's impossible to insulate something for 200 C? I can take a hot dish out of a 200C oven with nothing but my silicone rubber oven mitts, which don't melt at that temperature. The space suits had considerably more protection. I don't see what the problem is here.

Dehydration.

Quote from: sokarul on August 11, 2014, 10:06:47 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 12:56:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 10, 2014, 06:37:05 AM

It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.

LOL after  23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.

So what is the problem with the space shuttle losing 3 of its 5 engines at 23 miles? Are you sure the other 3 engines can't get it to escape velocity?

Maybe to help you understand rockets you could buy Kerbal Space Program. It's on Steam. This way you could launch your own rockets and see why multiple stage setups work better.

Fuel !!! The amount required  where is it ? & where is the large tank that is  required ?

What do you think is in the big tank?

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 12:56:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 10, 2014, 06:37:05 AM

It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.

LOL after  23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.

What?  Why?  Gravity gets weaker as you get further away from the Earth.  You could decrease acceleration at a certain point and make it there; doubly so because of the gravitational pull of the moon which will dominate the tidal force at a certain distance. 

I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory, but you have no idea what you are talking about.  You seem to be throwing darts at a dartboard blind-folded hoping you hit a bullseye.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.LOL I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory I'm glade you said THEORY. I understand the theory superman cant tolerate Kryptonite. The ore form of a radioactive element from Superman's home planet of Krypton & people will tell you its a fact, superman cant tolerate Kryptonite. But its not reality!!! its made up fantasy !!!. The altitude they claim the shuttle climes to, is total nonsense. a fantasy!!!!.       

Quote from: Rama Set on August 11, 2014, 11:39:34 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on August 11, 2014, 12:56:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 10, 2014, 06:37:05 AM

It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.

LOL after  23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.

What?  Why?  Gravity gets weaker as you get further away from the Earth.  You could decrease acceleration at a certain point and make it there; doubly so because of the gravitational pull of the moon which will dominate the tidal force at a certain distance. 

I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory, but you have no idea what you are talking about.  You seem to be throwing darts at a dartboard blind-folded hoping you hit a bullseye.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.LOL I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory I'm glade you said THEORY. I understand the theory superman cant tolerate Kryptonite. The ore form of a radioactive element from Superman's home planet of Krypton & people will tell you its a fact, superman cant tolerate Kryptonite. But its not reality!!! its made up fantasy !!!. The altitude they claim the shuttle climes to, is total nonsense. a fantasy!!!!.       

Literally the only part of this that makes sense is where you equivocate on the word theory, again showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe you can explain what physical laws are being broken by ballistic trajectories, and do so in the mathematical language rather than the cock-up that is your english.

I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.

If it has been done, you just have to copy/paste the answer and send it to me and you'll get €1 M.

I show the numbers in my article linked to above and find it is impossible, i.e. you get too heavy.

Only way to go to the Moon with a space ship seems to go there one way or another and then fill up your space ship fuel tank on the Moon in order to travel on.

Did Buzz do that? No! He lied about it. I link to this famous press conference in my article and it is quite obvious Buzz & Co are lying.

It was great fun though - cheating like that. Quite amusing! A great show! Imagine president Nixon welcoming Buzz & Co back on Earth on a war ship south of Hawaii (if they ever were there?). 5 years later Nixon resigned - he had been lying about a lot of other things.
If Nixon could lie, then Buzz could too.

Quote from: Shmeggley on August 11, 2014, 11:36:05 AM

I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.

If it has been done, you just have to copy/paste the answer and send it to me and you'll get €1 M.

You haven't got  €1 M. 

Otherwise show evidence of it in an escrow account, ready to be paid.

If you do want to set up a challenge with a prize, then you will need some kind of jury to rule on whether the conditions have been met for payment - I suggest 5 Phd engineers working in accredited academic positions.

You will also need to write down exactly what the conditions are to win your fantasy  €1 M.  You will then need an independent lawyer to oversee the process, handling the cash transfer etc.

Otherwise your  €1 M is just empty dick waving, and you should shut the fuck up about it.

Quote from: Shmeggley on August 11, 2014, 11:36:05 AM

I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.

If it has been done, you just have to copy/paste the answer and send it to me and you'll get €1 M.

I show the numbers in my article linked to above and find it is impossible, i.e. you get too heavy.

Only way to go to the Moon with a space ship seems to go there one way or another and then fill up your space ship fuel tank on the Moon in order to travel on.

Did Buzz do that? No! He lied about it. I link to this famous press conference in my article and it is quite obvious Buzz & Co are lying.

It was great fun though - cheating like that. Quite amusing! A great show! Imagine president Nixon welcoming Buzz & Co back on Earth on a war ship south of Hawaii (if they ever were there?). 5 years later Nixon resigned - he had been lying about a lot of other things.
If Nixon could lie, then Buzz could too.

Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used.  Also the burn times you estimated.

Quote from: Shmeggley on August 11, 2014, 11:36:05 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 11, 2014, 10:54:37 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on August 10, 2014, 12:32:44 AM

Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.

Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top. 
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!

I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.

And so why are you arguing that the Moon is too hot for astronauts? Didn't you just say they never went there?

But if you want to go that route fine. Are you really saying that it's impossible to insulate something for 200 C? I can take a hot dish out of a 200C oven with nothing but my silicone rubber oven mitts, which don't melt at that temperature. The space suits had considerably more protection. I don't see what the problem is here.

Dehydration.

Please give kindly. Together we can find the cure for dehydr- IT'S WATER FFS