NASA Administrator says space shuttles and stations are mistakes big time!!!!

See, now you ISS stalkers can calm down since it looks like we won't just 'abandon' it.

As you stated there are different types of heat transfer, and heat transfers by radiation through a vacuum. So in a vacuum, when something heats up, it also starts to radiate heat from it's self to cool down. It does not keep getting hotter. The temperature of an object depends on the intensity of the radiation and the mass that is absorbing it. But the mass also gives off the heat until a balance is reached and does not get any hotter. When there is no more radiation striking the mass, the mass continues to radiate heat and cools off. Hope that helps.

en.wikipedia.org...

Makes sense what you say. I don't dispute it. Eventually there would be some kind of equilibrium between what heat is absorbed and what heat is given off by radiation. But with none of the heat being diffused by an atomosphere but, rather, being kept in by the vacuum that we call "atmosphere" on the moon, I'm still not just taking anybody's word for this 250 degree temperature. I'd like to know where this figure came from and how.

I can't speak for how the temperature was determined, but the vacuum doesn't keep the heat from transferring (heating up or cooling down). It is radiated by electromagnetic waves, much like radio waves and does not need an atmospheric medium to transfer. That would be Convection heat transfer, one of three ways heat transfers. The other two are Conduction and Radiation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Okay, Hal. I realize there are three kinds of heat transfer. We have conduction and radiation to diffuse the heat, but no convection. My question, isn't a lack of atmosphere a huge obstacle to cooling the surface of the moon? And the conduction of heat will work to heat up the surface even more in places. You do agree that a vacuum is a powerful insulator to the heat that is radiating down on the moon, unfiltered by any atmosphere and prevented by that same lack of atmosphere from escaping (except by radiation and conduction).

I just think these are the kinds of questions that need to be asked, and I'm not taking anybody's word for any of this. Why? Because I know that NASA lies, and these are NOT NICE PEOPLE. (ie all the astroNOTs were 33 degree Freemasons)

I'll have to agree with you to an extent. NASA is a government entity so it will always be controlled by the government. But the influence that the 'managerial' staff have on it is far too great for NASA to survive...even in a shell of its former self. Once, Kennedy said 'Men on the moon', it was over. NASA become a political tool for those in power to beat their chest so they may subdue the commies and show off to everyone.

Richard Feynman commented during his Challenger report that the managerial aspect of NASA was too overwhelming, that mistakes occured either because decisions were not made based upon the engineer's assessment or because the influence on the engineer's assessment by the 'managerial' staff was present.

Basically, the decisions were coming not from engineers or were coming from engineers with someone behind them...if you know what I mean. This he said was the true cause of the accident, or so hinted he did. Had engineers and everyone paid attention they would have realized their mistakes in neglecting more than just the O-ring problem.

Yes there was a problem with the O-ring but other aspects of the shuttle such as pump failures and trubine cracks were neglected and not paid attention to in fully. They would stats at him like 'Our SRB's have a failure rate of 100,000 to 1' but Feynman would comment 'No, they have a failure rate of 1,000 to 1'. The reply would be 'That is for unmanned and manned SRBs so the true ratio is 100k to 1'. This was the kind of logic he found rampant at NASA.

This I believe is why NASA is now attempting a moon mission: politics.

Frosty -- If NASA is attempting a moon mission now because of politics, and if it would have been better not to have a government agency running the space program -- well, who was stopping anybody else from trying to get to the moon? If it was as easy as we were led to believe in the '60s to get there, don't you think someone else WOULD have?

It's the Skull and Bones, maan!

Coincidence the moon missions died under Nixon (Bonesman)?

Coincidence that now that the Bones have a strong hold on the White House (and when Hillary gets in, the grip will only tighten) we're planning on going back?

Coincidence that the new director of NASA went to a Bones founded University (John Hopkins)?

What don't the Bones want us to know?!

For the NWO fans, a table of events:
Ronald Reagan - began 'War On Drugs' , administered by Vice President George Bush the beginning of the loss of personal freedem AKA "New World Order"
George Bush, Sr. (Bone by blood) - Initiated conquest of Middle East - Progressing the "New World Order"
William Clinton (Bone by marriage) - Manipulated and encouraged "terrorist organization", leading up to...
George W. Bush (Bone by blood) - Well... he's pretty well documented in his actions.
Next up?
Hillary Clinton (Bone by blood) - Hmmm... I wonder what she has in store for us. Make the world cozy up to us again by being a super humanitarian and feeding the poor starving children? Only so the next Bone to sit in the Oval Office can...? We shall see.

Dem bones dem bones... dem crazy crazy bones.

APC -- you said:

Actually I think the space program thrived under Nixon. All the Apollo missions took place under his watch. Nixon was the Cold War Warrior, and I believe he knew full well it was all a hoax, but played along beautifully -- so as to bluff the Soviets into thinking we'd bested them.

Fact: The Soviets were light years ahead of us in the space race.