When JFK made landing a man on the moon during the 1960s a national goal, the primary purpose was to beat the Soviets, not science. That's not to say that science was completely lacking from the program, just not the primary focus.

The heartbreaking view of Apollo is one of incredible capability developed at great cost only to be thrown away. The scientific return from Apollos 11, 12, and 14 were marginal. By the J missions (15, 16, and 17), the return was much greater. The astronauts were better trained to perform scientific data gathering, the missions were more complex and capable, and one crew even had a scientist.

Still, they landed 6 times then scrapped everything. The Saturn V, the most powerful booster in the world at the time, only flew once more to carry Skylab. The remaining 3 rockets ended up rotting on their sides exposed to the elements. More powerful growth versions were studied, but all for nothing.

The Lunar Modules were thrown away, along with the Grumman team who created them. A host of companies who created the technology that make Apollo possible ended up getting out of the space business, if not going out of business altogether.

Apollo died due to lack of sustained interest. As one wag put it, "NASA took the most exciting event in history and made it boring." Without public interest, there wasn't enough will on Capitol Hill or the White House to continue. We've been stuck in LEO ever since, despite Heinlein's correct observation that once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere.