[Telepathic Intruder]

Actually, it would make no sense to build another Saturn V. We have some tech that we didn't have then, such as reusable engines, so there's no need for a completely expendable rocket. The Saturn V was taller than the Statue of Liberty, and only a small capsule returned from the moon.

By the way, there's a difference between defeatism and realism.

[mdmathis6]

The realism part is that we probably don’t need something that large but we could probably build something as powerful but at much lighter a weight. The defeatist part is somebody saying...”the knowledge is lost...we can never do such a thing again....bring out your dead...”bong”!

...and stuff!

[Campion]

Building another Saturn V would be like starting up a production line to build '57 Chevys. We don't build cars that way anymore, they don't work that way anymore, etc.

All of the hundreds of holes in the combustion chamber baseplates in the Saturn V's F1 first stage engines were drilled by hand using a drill press! Can you imagine building something like that, that way, now?

Just going from open-cycle, gas generator engines (which the Saturn V used) to closed-cycle, staged combustion engines (like the Russian RD-180, the BE-4, Merlin, Shuttle, etc.) is a terrific improvement in efficiency. Improved engine efficiency means you can lift more payload with the same rocket. It's a big deal.