Ian Crawford said, "He thought that $50 billion was a “huge underestimate” and was concerned about the effects of cosmic radiation."

According to experts this cosmic radiation produces 350 rads, enough to fry the astrounauts. According to some reports on the Internet we never really put a MAN on the moon. They said there were shadows in the pictures, and that would be impossible if the pictures were actually taken on the moon. They say, it was all a hoax, and a way for NASA to get funds.

I really don't know, just playing devil's advocate, and repeating what I heard from claimed to be experts on Art Bell Show, Amerika Expose, and Alex Jones.

: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-110510,00.html

: FRIDAY APRIL 06 2001

: Scientists predict Moon base by 2007

: BY MARK HENDERSON, SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT

: MAN could return to the Moon to set up a permanent base by
: 2007 at half the cost of building the International Space
: Station, a Nasa scientist said yesterday.

: A lunar space station staffed by four astronauts would offer
: unprecedented opportunities to advance human understanding
: of the Universe at an affordable price and should be a
: priority for Nasa and the European Space Agency, Paul
: Spudis told the National Astronomy Meeting in Cambridge.

: Dr Spudis, from the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston,
: Texas, said that such a project was already technically
: feasible and could be accomplished within six years of
: gaining approval from politicians and funding bodies. It
: would cost an estimated $50 billion (£35 billion) — less in
: real terms than the $25 billion spent on the Apollo Moon
: missions of the 1960s and 1970s.

: Once established, an international base would house powerful
: telescopes to take advantage of the Moon’s lack of
: atmosphere and clouds and allow detailed surveys of the
: surface. It would also provide an ideal test bed for
: technology that might one day sustain astronauts on a
: mission to Mars.

: “There are certain scientific goals that can only be
: accomplished by sending humans into space,” Dr Spudis said.
: “The experiments require human intelligence to perform. A
: return to the Moon would give us a natural laboratory for
: planetary science and a unique astronomical observing
: platform on which to set up instruments. There are few
: earthquakes and there is no wind, cloud or rain.
: Astronomers can examine the skies constantly and without
: atmospheric interference.”

: He said that the Moon base should be situated on the rim of
: Shackleton’s crater, near the “south pole”. The location
: had nearby ice deposits which could be mined as a source of
: water and oxygen; it also had a stable, if cold (-50C)
: temperature, and a long, sunlit day allowing the prolonged
: use of solar panels.

: The first team of four astronauts, who would stay for an
: initial 45 days, would set up a permanent living module
: buried under the Moon’s surface to shield from solar
: radiation. That could then be used by future missions,
: which would take new modules and experiments to expand the
: station.

: Scientists would use the base to build on the knowledge
: gleaned from the Apollo missions, the last of which landed
: on the Moon in 1972. A base would pave the way for a future
: manned mission to Mars. “The lessons we learn through life
: on the Moon would be invaluable,” Dr Spudis said.

: Ian Crawford, an astronomer at University College London,
: agreed that a return to the Moon should be a priority, but
: Andrew Coates, of the Mullard Space Science Laboratory at
: University College, said that money would be better
: invested in robotic probes. “I would love to send people,
: but I am worried about the cost and about whether they
: would survive,” he said. He thought that $50 billion was a
: “huge underestimate” and was concerned about the effects of
: cosmic radiation.