Nope, cause it didn’t have a second stage they could refuel in orbit, a reusable second stage they could use as a tanker, or a reusable first stage that provides the cadence to do in orbit refueling.

Because of in-orbit refueling each Starship will land over ten times the payload on Mars as each Apollo mission landed on the moon.

Still, that is multiple Starships.

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.

> Still, that is multiple Starships. [...] Also, the Saturn V came back.

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.

They are two completely different vehicles. One is made for a return mission, the other made is made for a one way mission, while the other is reusable.

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.

A single SuperHeavy can put a loaded Starship weighing roughly 360,000 total pounds into low earth orbit, SaturnV could only put 310,000 lbs total payload into low earth orbit.

There, is that the comparison you wanted?

> The Saturn V can carry those 3 people way further, though.

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.

The Saturn V would be three people to the moon and back. Starship is 100 people more or less around GTO. Multiple starships are needed to go to Mars. It's a pretty ridiculous comparison.

Isn’t excluding comparisons that include refuelling, when contrasting a refuel-able and a non refuel-able vehicle, somewhat ridiculous? Starship is refuel-able , that’s one of its capabilities. Nobody on these vehicles going to Mars will care about you sitting there complaining that is doesn’t count.

Kinda reminds me of the argument that the Wright Bros didn't invent the airplane because a catapult was used to launch later models.

(Apparently the aircraft launched from an aircraft carrier aren't really airplanes, either!)

If you only care about one way travel then any refuealable vehicle technically has infinite delta v.

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.

> 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?

>If you only care about one way...

I care about actual practical capabilities and achievable mission profiles. What do you are about?

Getting to LEO is already halfway to anywhere in the Solar System, though. And then Starship can go back and land.

The Saturn V didn't come back with people did it? Just a small capsule splashing in the ocean