The problem here is that there is no good reason to build this large rocket. There are already rockets capable of launching humans and lunar expeditions into space from American soil. NASA and the government are wasting precious resources by duplicating that capability.

The usual justification given is that big rockets are needed for lunar expeditions. But that is not correct - you can easily just launch more of already existing rockets. Apollo only used Saturn V since there was so little time and so little experience in orbital rendezvous, which turned out to be possible quite easily. There's also a reason why the Saturn V was not flown beyond the Skylab mission or why no more were built. It was just too expensive and only few payloads would justify using it.

If american space policy was more rational, it could achieve much more in a shorter period of time.

In an industrial sense, the F-1 tests are always interesting and probably don't cost a lot of money. The engine was not that advanced, a normal, if big, gas generator kerosene engine.

The same "ancient artifacts", could be said from the NK-33 engines, that were built in the seventies in the Soviet Union but are going to fly this year in Orbital Science's brand new Antares rocket to resupply the ISS. The engines are still state of the art high pressure oxidizer rich staged combustion with thrust to weight rates of around 100.

In what other field can you reach such levels of technological advance that they stand unsurpassed forty years later?