[Sudarshan]

From the article:

   The Russians have achieved a low-cost, reliable launch capability because,

first of all, they used simple, damage-tolerant designs that were less than optimum by Western standards (from a performance and weight minimiza- tion standpoint). The Soviet boosters and their subsystems were designed to be highly modular, allowing vehicle customization for various missions with- out always requiring completely new launch systems. Soviet launcher modu- larity also provided the opportunity for large manufacturing economies of scale for many components. Either because of pragmatic engineering judg- ment or because of economic necessity, the Soviets reused existing designs for decades, making minor modifications only when necessary. Their launch operations emphasize off-line processing and minimum pad time; and their simple, rugged launch vehicles have required minimal launch pad testing. Also, Russian boosters have enjoyed high launch rates, thus en- hancing manufacturing economies of scale and driving unit costs down. It is interesting to speculate on how well US industries would do if they applied these simple factors in a completely commercially-driven venture. After all, the reliable, low-cost Russian launch capability has been built by a country in which inefficiency and waste have been historically endemic.

[iwwr]

The curse of having too much money perhaps?