considering this is over 50 years after Saturn V, I don't feel this is such a huge feat.
I've adjusted my expectations quite a bit due to the lack of mobility progress since then.
What got in the way was politics.
What revived space tech was competition.
Politics and bureaucracy can plague private enterprise and competition can be had between or at the behest of government institutions.
It's not as simple as government bad, private good. In fact that simplification can be quite dangerous if it leads to the erosion of government as policy.
That of course is biased towards the contracted projects, but still provides cashflow and leverage for capital.
Because of in-orbit refueling each Starship will land over ten times the payload on Mars as each Apollo mission landed on the moon.
Also, the Saturn V came back. That requires quite a bit more delta v. Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars.
Since we're nitpicking: The Saturn V didn't come back – the tiny command module came back, and it wasn't reusable. In fact, the only reusable part of the Saturn V were the astronauts.
> Actually, going to the moon and back is not that far off a one way trip to Mars.
You're moving the goalpost. This is getting ridiculous. What are you even arguing about? Starship + Super Heavy will be a much more capable rocket, superior to the Saturn V in almost every way. That doesn't detract from the incredible engineering of the Saturn V, which was developed 55 years earlier, in record time, with slide rules (!), and which first launched 10 years after the first artificial satellite (!!) That is impossible to beat, and there's no need for a pissing contest.
That being said, that rocket alone isn't going to be more capable than the Saturn V in moving a payload around. It will be less capable. If you have many rockets then you'll have the capacity to move that payload around as a far as a Saturn V.
There, is that the comparison you wanted?
Saturn V: 3 people to the Moon; Starship: 100 people to Mars (unproven, of course). Mars is a little further than the Moon. Granted, that's with in-orbit refueling.
(Apparently the aircraft launched from an aircraft carrier aren't really airplanes, either!)
People on these vehicles going to Mars are mostly going to complain about not being able to go back, as any kind of return mission will be Non-reusable.
What are you talking about? Starships will be refueled on Mars and will return back to Earth. Why shouldn't they be reusable after their return?
I care about actual practical capabilities and achievable mission profiles. What do you are about?