# data[].attributes.body
Some people would want to spend millions or billions on Valuable Resources on Space Exploration but why shouldn't we? The only reason why is because spending it on Space Exploration is that we could be spending it on world hunger, giving people who have no homes, no food/water, or maybe their health reasons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new report commissioned by NASA highlights many of the risks connected with one of the agency's major goals: putting more humans in space for longer periods of time.

Space missions with humans have grown far longer and more complex since the early days of the space program. NASA's One Year Mission, launched in March 2015, will keep astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko on the International Space Station for a full year. Nearly twice as long at the typical ISS mission, the One Year Mission is in part designed to help NASA understand the effects of living in a weightless environment with tightly limited resources.

The 2015 Review of NASA's Evidence Reports on Human Health Risks, released Thursday, is the third of five such documents produced by a committee of researchers at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.

The review's recommendations include that NASA:

Study the way different risks affect each other - such as the impact food and nutrition have on physical and mental health and performance;

Stress the differences between spacewalks outside the ISS versus work outside vehicles on planets, where environments could be totally different;

Consider a wider array of spacesuit designs - the current reports discuss only one;

Begin tailoring more research to individuals and account for the differences between individuals.

The reports are being done at NASA's request to further the agency's understanding of how it can improve safety and quality of life for travelers on space missions, especially longer ones where the health effects of celestial travel are less well understood and potentially more severe.

Each report in NASA's Human Research Program takes a sample of the agency's studies and identifies both areas where research is solid, as well as potential research problems or questions that still need to be addressed.

Apart from longer trips to the ISS, NASA is also evaluating the feasibility of setting up bases or outposts on the moon, deep space missions to bodies such as near-Earth asteroids, and travel to other planets, such as Mars.

"I think it would be fair to say the context in which all of this is happening is there will be longer tours of duty and longer missions," said committee chair Carol E.H. Scott-Conner, a doctor and professor of surgery at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine.

There are myriad risks an astronaut faces in space - from muscle and bone loss to psychological health to nutrition, and risks change based on the type of mission or activity an astronaut undertakes. "Space travel is so complex and difficult, and space is such an unforgiving environment, that it is almost impossible to identify any one thing that is a greater risk than anything else," Scott-Conner told CNBC

Muscle loss is a well-documented problem in environments with little or no gravity - astronauts in space typically spend two hours a day working out simply to compensate for it. NASA has estimated that muscle size and function can decline 20 to 40 percent without countermeasures.

Space can also affect the body's ability to take up oxygen - a key indicator of aerobic fitness - and can impair the body's ability to regulate blood pressure.

Astronauts can injure themselves while performing tasks or suffer excessive radiation exposure, especially while donning space suits and working outside a vehicle or space station. NASA has been working on new spacesuits in part to reduce the risk of injury or sickness while on space walks or venturing outside vehicles.

There are also food supply and nutrition issues. Food can spoil during long missions, it can lack needed nutrients, and it can even bore or frustrate astronauts when it tastes bad or lacks variety.

Space travel brings logistical challenges that can ruin even the best-laid plans. In one case noted in the review, food supplies prestocked at the International Space Station went to waste or lost quality over time as the number of astronauts traveling to the ISS declined.

Despite the challenges, Scott-Conner said she is impressed with space travel's extraordinary safety record, and the potentially useful advances in research and technology that have been made by public institutions and the private sector.

Breakthroughs can come from unlikely places. For example, with respect to food supplies, the review notes that three-dimensional printing may help "enhance the variety and freshness of foods that might be produced during long term missions."

Russian cosmonaut Valery Polyakov still holds the record for the longest space mission at 438 days, which he set while stationed at the Mir Space Station from 1994-1995.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The health risks of spending a year in outer space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report commissioned by NASA highlights many of the risks connected with one of the agency's major goals: putting more humans in space for longer periods of time. Space missions with humans have grown far longer and more complex since the early days of the space program.

# data[].attributes.body
The only reason why is because spending it on Space Exploration is that we could be spending it on world hunger, giving people who have no homes, no food/water, or maybe their health reasons.

# data[].attributes.body
It's no doubt if some of the scientists spend about 1 trillion or more dollars on Space exploration because...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, which funds the U.S. government for the remainder of the fiscal year. NASA received $19.65 billion-its best budget since 2010-and the Planetary Science Division saw its budget increase to $1.846 billion-its best budget in more than ten years.

Needless to say, we are very pleased with this. It represents an increase of $215 million to planetary science above 2016, and is $345 million more than the President originally proposed for this year. When adjusting for inflation and programmatic consistency, this is the best budget for NASA's Planetary Science Division since 2005.

The bulk of the funding boost is directed toward the Europa Clipper mission, which receives $275 million in 2017 on a request of $50 million. This infusion of cash allows the Clipper to stay on track for a 2022 launch date, much earlier than NASA has proposed, and includes additional funding for development of a follow-on lander mission-a mission that Trump's first budget request has denied.

The Mars Exploration Program gets a $62 million boost above the request. The addition money will double the amount of study funding for a new Mars orbiter mission (which has not yet been formally requested by NASA), fund a a "Mars-copter" to fly on the Mars 2020 mission (yes, really!), allow the Opportunity rover to keep on roving, and provide Mars 2020 with some additional resources to ensure it stays on track for its launch in July of 2020.

The Discovery program, which manages NASA's competitively-selected small planetary missions, gets a $22M boost above the President's request. This will help manage the cost overruns with the InSight Mars lander and to support development of two new missions, Lucy and Psyche, which were just selected for launch in 2021 and 2023. New Frontiers was the only part of the planetary science budget to see a decline compared to the President's budget request. The New Frontiers program is in a programmatic lull, having completed development of the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft and just beginning the process of selecting the follow-up mission for launch in 2024, so this decline is not unexpected or damaging.

Here's a phrase I don't get to write very often: scientific research funding does well, increasing by nearly $15 million compared to 2016. This should help with selection rates for scientific research proposals and support the ever-growing size of the planetary science community, particularly as larger missions like Cassini wind down.

NASA's Near-Earth Objects Observation program grows by another $10 million to $60 million in 2017, but $16 million of that is directed toward the Double Asteroid Redirection Test mission, a kinetic impactor spacecraft which was developed in concert with an now-cancelled ESA mission. NASA has stated that it intends to continue working on AIDA despite the uncertainties in ESA's mission planning, though it is unclear how much this mission will cost, and if NASA will be able to accommodate a full mission budget going forward.

In terms of the big picture every science division at NASA did reasonably well. Earth Science retained its same budget as last year-$1.92 billion-and remains the top-funded science division within the agency. Heliophysics grew to $678.5 million. Compared to 2016, Astrophysics grew to $750 million, though this was less than the President's proposed growth for 2017. While at first glance this looks like positive news for Astrophysics, the division was directed to spend $105 million on the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), effectively cutting the funds available to all other programs by 10%. SpaceNews has details on the broader impacts to all of NASA science.

In terms of human spaceflight, SLS and Orion were big winners, with budget growth up to $2.15 billion and $1.35 billion, respectively. Commercial crew and cargo are fully-funded in 2017, though overall space operations takes a small hit. $75 million was directed toward deep space habitat development, an increase of 50% over last year.

Now that the 2017 appropriations process has finished (seven months late), attention turns toward 2018. As of yet, the Trump Administration has not provided additional details beyond their "skinny budget" proposal which, though it slashes funding for many sciences, generally treats NASA quite well. More details are expected by the end of May. Congress is already behind in their schedule for appropriations, and has not yet passed a budget-resolution, making life uncertain for the relevant appropriations subcommittees.

In the meantime, we should savor this moment. NASA and planetary exploration are enjoying a complete reversal in fortunes from just a few years ago. Europa, Mars, and many other destinations are in our sights, and the future is looking bright.

However, this might be a good time to write a letter to your members of Congress, asking them to continue funding for NASA and space science. The effort never ends.

Support Our Core Enterprises

Your support powers our mission to explore worlds, find life, and defend Earth. Give today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planetary Science Just Got Its Best Budget in Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, funding the U.S. government for the remainder of the fiscal year. NASA got a boost to $19.65 billion, and its Planetary Science Division saw a budget increase to $1.846 billion-its best budget in more than ten years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Colossal strides in civilization in the past have followed each major advance in man's observation of the skies. Astronomical discoveries, time after time, have influenced and, in some cases, shifted the very course of history.
By Gene Gregory

As the Apollo 11 and 12 spacecraft raced toward their rendezvous with the moon last July and last November, these most ambitious of man's ventures were the focus of a sharp and lively debate back on earth about the real meaning and value of space exploration.

Twelve years had passed since the Soviet Union launched the space age by firing Sputnik I into earth orbit on October 4, 1957. The United States had spent some $44 thousand million on space programmes, $24 thousand million on the Apollo project alone. Hundreds of thousands of top scientists and technicians had been striving together in by far the largest team of specialists ever mobilized in a single undertaking.

Yet the basic question was still being asked: "Is this trip really necessary?"

Was the moon landing a pointless "stunt", however adroitly executed, or a breath-taking demonstration of man's unlimited capabilities? Would the billions allocated for space be better spent on solving pressing problems here on earth? What, in short, is there in all this running around in space for those of us who remain earthbound mortals?

Arnold J. Toynbee, the esteemed British historian, expressed the concern of many serious-minded sceptics for whom the moon landing symbolized a yawning gap between technology and morals.

"In a sense," Toynbee remonstrated, "going to the moon is like building the pyramids or Louis XIV's palace at Versailles. It's rather scandalous, when human beings are going short of necessities, to do this. If we're clever enough to reach the moon, don't we feel rather foolish in our mismanagement of human affairs?"

But others contend that there is money enough for the moon and tasks on earth, too. And some go further to point out that the conquest of space has done much, through the development of new ideas, new attitudes, new techniques and new structures for the management of large-scale undertakings, to prepare man for a major offensive against the unsolved social and material problems at home.

"If you look at the thousands of years of civilization," Sir Bernard Lovell, director of Britain's Jodrell Bank Observatory reminds us, "you will find that only those communities that have been prepared to struggle with the nearly insoluble problems at the limits of their technical capacities those are the only communities, the only times, that civilization has advanced. The Roman Empire decayed when ¡t ceased to be progressive in this sense, and there are other examples. To a certain extent, you see the beginnings of it in the United Kingdom today, but fortunately not in the United States and certainly not in the Soviet Union."

Queen Isabella of Spain was confronted with something of the same sort of question nearly five centuries ago when she sold her jewels to assemble the resources necessary to finance the trip to the Indies of Christopher Columbus and his crew.

Her prime motives may well have been the glory and riches she expected to accrue to Spain. But the great results of this historical venture were not the spice and gold it brought to Spanish coffers, nor the vast territorial acquisitions which gave Spain dominion over the first global empire in history.

Far more important, the Columbian explorations marked the beginning of a major new cycle in the development of the world, enhancing man's mastery of the seas and bringing together in one great community, however unhappily, the entire human race.

It is not too much to contemplate that similar experiences may be awaiting us as we embark on the contemporary venture into unknown space. This is not simply because outer space provides a new dimension to potentially new resources, nor because the possibility of finding life on other planets has suddenly become much more real. Of even greater importance is the vast accumulation of new technology and new techniques resulting from the first decade of space exploration. Not unnaturally, the sheer spectacular quality of the moon landing tended to focus the world's attention on the heroic aspects of the achievement.

Somehow, the casting of the Apollo 11 and 12 voyages on millions of television sets around the world gave it the character of a sports event. Focus was on the astronauts, champions of a new interplanetary Olympiad, and on the faultless performance of the spacecraft. In the process, the real significance of space exploration became obscure.

If the experience of the past three or four thousand years has any value, it tells us that in freeing himself from the millennial confinement of the earth's gravitation and its atmosphere, man has added a vast new dimension to his environment and to his character. In broadening his horizons, he has in a qualitative sense altered his very being and completely changed his relationship to the rest of nature, and this in turn presages sweeping changes in every field of human activity.

Colossal strides in civilization in the past have followed each major advance in man's observation of the skies. Astronomical discoveries, time after time, have influenced and, in some cases, shifted the very course of history.

Now, the impact of space exploration the most momentous of all human adventures promises to usher in a new stage of civilization the broad outlines of which remain undefinable, if for no other reason than that the exploration has only begun. The potential of the universe for mankind is as completely unknown today as was that of the New World after the return of Columbus to Spain.

As Margaret Mead, the American anthropologist, has put it: "Once you raise the question that other land than this earth is possible to live on, that other places are possible places to found colonies, or that there may be other living creatures somewhere, you have changed the whole place of man in the universe. You've altered everything. This involves a considerable reduction of human arrogance and a tremendous magnification of human possibilities."

Just as the age of earth exploration completely transformed the political matrix around the globe, the space age will radically. Alter the present global political constellation and institutions. The nation state, already ill-suited to human needs in the last half of the twentieth century, can hardly be expected to effectively serve man's goals in space.

The on-again off-again trip to Mars, originally scheduled for the 1970s, will very likely be too expensive for either the United States or the Soviet Union to undertake alone. By combining in this and other projects in the conquest of space, it is possible to co-operate where prejudices and conflicting interests are least involved. In this age of global problems, the necessity of co-operation in space as human beings with predominantly common interests cannot but have a feedback on earth. If and when space exploration becomes more than a marginal activity, its higher priority is bound to give new stimulus to international joint ventures in space.

Already COMSAT (Communications Satellite Corporation) and INTELSAT (the international space communications organization of 70 member countries) have established a pattern for international public utilities in space communications. American and Soviet rockets are launching European, Australian and Japanese satellites into space. And some 40 tracking stations around the globe, involving varying degrees of international co-operation, participated in the Apollo project.

But if no one knows where this new adventure in space will eventually take us, what new worlds will be discovered what new horizons will open as man colonizes the moon or other planets, or what advantages may be found in manufacturing instruments and equipment in the vacuum of outer space, the first decade of the Space Age has given us a foretaste of what is in store for the future.

Since 1967 hardly a person on earth has not been directly or indirectly effected in one way or another by the results of the space exploration. Liberated from the forces that have kept us earthbound throughout recorded history, we now have capabilities (intellectual and material) that are immeasurably greater than ever before. These new capabilities open unlimited opportunities for the development of human faculties and the satisfaction of human needs.

A whole galaxy of earth satellites is now providing global services which have already brought vast improvements to communications, weather prediction, geology and geodetics, navigation and oceanography. These and other vital tools for the enhancement of man's control over his environment are available not only to the advanced industrial countries that have developed them, but have had immediate benefits for all countries around the globe providing developing countries with tremendous new capabilities for more rapid economic and social advance.

New technologies products, materials, processes, manufacturing techniques, operating procedures, and new standards born of space requirements are being transferred from their original space application to industry, commerce, education and public health, replacing products or practices currently in use to provide those which will better fill the vast variety of human needs.

But, most important, effective techniques and structures have been developed for the "forcing" of technology transfer, and private industry, universities and governments now have at their disposal vast computerized data banks of knowledge and data on virtually every field of the physical and social sciences, technology and the humanities.

But an even more important aspect of the Space Revolution is the last one: techniques for directing massive projects undertaken by thousands of minds in a close-knit, synergistic combination of government, universities and industry. Taken together these techniques are potentially the most powerful management tool in man's history, changing the way civil servants, scientists and managers approach virtually every task they undertake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colossal strides in civilization in the past have followed each major advance in man's observation of the skies. Astronomical discoveries, time after time, have influenced and, in some cases, shifted the very course of history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Planetary Exploration Budget Dataset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The cost per mission, per year, for every robotic planetary exploration effort in NASA’s history.

# data[].attributes.body
The only reason why I choose is that it talks about how there's a Budget and how they need more to take people to space. Another reason why I would choose this is when they only spend it on people going to space and it only has a 0.5% of them spending it on education because without it then people who would want to would only get little knowledge about going to space. The second article https://ysjournal.com/should-more-money-be-spent-on-space-exploration-rather-than-to-solve-humanitarian-problems-on-earth/

# data[].attributes.body
In conclusion, this is why I choose not to spend money on space Exploration because it can cause world hunger and will maybe cause health risk for trying to travel to space. Another reason why I wouldn't spend money on space and not trying to help the earth because we can help people and not going to send people to space because if some people that would want to go to space but they don't know that they have health issues then they just pass out.