Well they have lost me! I will not pay to watch. I think Seth will regret it!

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/the-orville-season-3-hulu-1203274526/

The WASHINTON MONUMENT has also been turned into a ROCKET SHIP to HONOR the ANNIVERSARY of the MOON MISSION:

Yeah it was on the news yesterday that they had projected a Saturn V on the Washington Monument

But here's another MISSION that was a COMBINATION or a COLLABORATION:

Over the last couple of weeks one has seen many programs about the space race,the Mercury,Gemini and Apollo programs,the Moon landings,the Astronauts (the one about The last man on the Moon Gene Cernan is pretty good),various space explorations,the Galileo/Cassini(NASA)-Huygens (ESA)mission,the Voyager missions,the Pluto explorer,a series about The planets with Brian Cox,and the new Space Race.

Why do you think something WENT WRONG???

I meant in terms of manned space programs after the Apollo missions NASA only had three Skylab and one Apollo/Soyuz mission during the entire 70's the USSR on the other hand did many manned space flights and had 6 Soyut space stations and on occasion would spend almost an entire year in space.Which is why I brought up the Shuttle program because despite is presumed re-use ability rotation cost were extremely high as a matter of fact for one Shuttle mission one could do an entire Apollo/Saturn V Moon landing.

People began to complain about THE COST of it.

I know that costs were part of the problem but that doesn't prevent one from asking the question that while it did all these other unmanned space exploratory missions the majority of NASA;'s budget was spend on the development and maintaining the Shuttle program that these unmanned exploratory missions were basically done on the cheap and represented a tiny fraction of NASA 's budget that in hindsight NASA could have done far more manned deep space exploration if they has not chosen to go on the path of the Shuttle which in the end failed because in reality it never was that re-use able(in fact only the shuttle part was used again the fuel tank always burned up in the atmosphere and the two solid fuel booster rockets were almost never used again because these didn't prove to be reliable )it never reached the level of launches (which was projected at every two weeks)needed for it to be an economically viable and when operating cost would be reduced plus the cost of losing two Shuttles(Challenger and Columbia) in accidents and the extra costs of building a new replacement (Atlantis) and various modifications needed after these accidents.So in the end each Shuttle mission cost as much as an Apollo Lunar mission and since there have been like a 150 shuttle flights that would have meant around 150 missions to the Moon and back.

They came up with the SHUTTLE in an effort to silence the COMPLAINTS about how the POD and the REST of the STUFF they didn't use again kept costing too much MONEY.

Yeah but they based the Shuttle program on far too optimistic re-use ability figures and the number of launches it could do on a annual basis (25-26 each year) which were all based on a entirely different launch system.The original plan was to mount the Shuttle on another larger Shuttle type like craft that served as a first stage to bring the Shuttle in Earth orbit and for it to return to Earth like the Shuttle craft although this was far more expensive to build it had the benefits that it was far more reliable and far easier and cheaper to operate and maintain and more important it was much safer.But instead of the expensive system NASA choose for the familiar launch configuration (Shuttle on top of a large fuel tank and two solid rocket booster )which to turned out to be far more complex for it to operate on a two weekly basis also part of it's re-use able parts (the solid rocket boosters)turned out less reliable than projected so the whole thing was never going to be able to meet the demanded targets after they changed the launch configuration.And the used configuration turned out to be less safe which came al too apparent with the accidents of the Challenger and the Columbia adding more costs to the program .

On the other hand if they had stuck with the proven technology of the Saturn IB and Saturn V rockets they could have developed these further along the way and to their specific function/need and building them in larger quantities would have meant a reduction in production cost also the lunar equipment could also be developed further as miniaturization and other technologies progressed allowing for longer periods spend on the moon and the possibility of building a space station in orbit of or on the moon(Moon base).Skylab proved that the Saturn V components could be modified into a space station this could possibly done with various other components of the Saturn IB and Saturn V .Does this sound like nonsense well.... NO because the current design of the capsule they are going to use in the new lunar program is basically the same capsule they used on Apollo only with a more spacious interior because of technological advances over the past 50 years.And another fact the Russians have been basically using the same R-7 rocket for the past 60 years and with great success,economical and quite reliable that the hardware that put Sputnik into orbit is not that different from the hardware that launches people into space to the ISS nowadays.

There was also the OTHER COMPLAINT that ONE LAUNCH also PRODUCED more POLLUTION in a matter of SECONDS than an ENTIRE FACTORY did in ONE YEAR.

So the LAUNCHES were also BAD for the ENVIRONMENT as well.

Well since those solid rocket boosters of the shuttle were nothing more than two very expensive flares(when one looks at it from a fuel perspective) that that argument falls short and since to my knowledge the fuel for the first S IV stage of the Saturn V used liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen for propulsion what pollution are you talking about water vapor?

Like the case is with anything else, there were SEVERAL different VARIABLES that went into the reasons the MANNED MISSIONS came to a HAULT.

If you've ever seen APOLLO 13 then you also realize how INTEREST in the SPACE PROGRAM had also FALLEN OFF once they landed on the MOON the FIRST TIME.

That was because the Apollo program had always been more about prestige rather than science,but the same thing happened to the Shuttle program .And considering the costs of running that one could have achieved so much more for the same amount of money or possibly less if they commercialized a segment of the Saturn IB or V spin offs selling payloads and to launch probes and spacecraft for other nations or could have formed a joint venture with ESA and Japan .But in the scenario I sketched because of the spin off program an ISS size could have been in orbit in the mid 80's with a possible return to the Moon in he late 80's early 90's with a permanent Moon base around the turn of the century which would have made a manned mission to Mars more viable.

I know the movie Apollo 13 by heart read Lovell's book and much more about the space programs

The first stage of the Saturn V used a sort of kerosene fuel, the rest of the stages used liquid hydrogen.

In adjusted dollars, the Apollo program cost $153 billion. That's about $8.5 billion per flight for 18 flights including tests. The entire space shuttle program cost about $200 billion. That's about $1.4 billion per 140 flights including tests. Continuing with more flights would have brought down the average.

More Apollo trips to the Moon would have accomplished what, exactly? The same rockets couldn't have lifted or returned more weight - more moon rocks? - and could not have built a space station... or launched or repaired satellites including Hubble... It's not like people would have been glued to their TV sets for the 30th moon landing...

The cost for the Apollo program also included the Mercury,Gemini,Ranger and Surveyor missions

The Moon is a pretty big place with a lot of things stil to be explained and discover .Plus it would have led to discovery of technologies,materials and products that can be used outside the field of space technology(the reason why you have your home computer and mobile phone thanks to the developments made during the Apollo program) Also over time one could have developed a Moon base and use the experienced gained for the inevitable Mars missions.As for the rockets even during the Apollo project engines became more powerful for example the engines of the later LEM /LM J missions (Apollo 15,16,17) were more powerful than those of the earlier LM's which allowed for more gear to be brought onto the Moon (the Lunar Rover and more supplies and equipment that could sustain missions on the Moon for days ).Also building more rockets woud mean lowering production costs of these .Add to that the gained knowledge over the decades that would have led to cheaper more efficient ,powerful engines and rockets .For example the Russian used an other type of system for their propulsion which is far more efficient,powerful and reliable that combined with the big F-1 engines of the first stage of the Saturn V would have led to quite a substantial increase of the payload of the Saturn V .Also let's say that after Apollo NASA spend their attention of building a space station (which would have done the research and provided the experience that the Shuttle /Spacelab/MIR mission would late provide using an adapted dressed down version of the Saturn V to bring the major components(which consist largely of adapted segments of the Saturn V and Saturn 1B rockets) into orbit and using an adapted dressed down version of the Saturn 1B or even the Atlas rocket of the Gemini program could be used to send up crews much like the Russians used the Soyuz .in the end they could have constructed an ISS like space station by connecting various Skylab sized components together.Since the Shuttle never was any competition for the rocket launched satellites that won't make much of a difference as for repair and maintenance one could have developed and launched a craft designed for use in space only (like the LM) and use these to pick up Satellites and Hubble and do the maintenance at the space station you build.Also when or prior to that ISS size station was build (around the mid 80's)NASA could have gone into joint ventures with ESA Japan other countries in the world to spread costs and to sell payload and components to third parties spreading costs and also have an income other than that of the US government ,think other countries and commercial companies.So that by the end of the 80's al the knowledge and experience gained from that could be used for prolonged lunar mission and building a space station around the Moon or Lunar bases using the adapted technology of the Saturn 1B mark III and Saturn V mark II which will be cheaper,more powerful,efficient and more reliable Also by then the US and Russia could have combined resources together with ESA,Japan and other space faring nations to spread the costs and production over various nations and providing more launch facilities.

where is your sense of adventure and your desire for exploration?

Other people might