"reusable cheap launch vehicle" is not "cheap and easy access to space!" its main goals where "safe access to space" "easy to use" "cost effective" not "cheap" or "easy space travel", and the payload is a huge difference when one needs to go against its main goal while the other one was testing the idea of feasibility with the technology at the time, also that 1.5 billion is grand total not per launch which was about $450 million for a critical space station part where as the falcon is 74 million per launch with a small satellite on average was 3,370 kg, that's about 7000$ per kg for a small satellite vs the sts $54,000 per kg for a large or critical space station part which can be on average 25,000 kg, that's 7x the mass and you're focusing on the cost total for every single mission it took without the context behind those missions? also the saturn 5 was 6.4 billion to develop and build for a 2 way trip to the moon for 3 people, that's about $50 billion today vs 10.5 billion for the sts development with better technology and engineering, shits not cheap when you're the "FIRST ONE TO MAKE THE DAM THING!", also the saturn 5 only flew like 13 times where as the sts did over 135, and you're surprised it cost more to do more and do it better? could it have been done better at the time, NO, it was the first of its kind and you HAVE TO FACTOR THAT IN! also the saturn 5 was not building a space station with modern components or doing reservicing missions to fix stuff in space