[r9etb]

Russia was considered backward, too. Oh gee, this is a Russian-derivative spacecraft, isn't? Curious...

The dirty secret is that manned space flight isn't really that difficult, once you've figured out how to reliably put things in orbit in the first place. The cost of manned spaceflight comes as a result of safety factors -- "don't kill the crew" sorts of things.

[Frank_Discussion]

Quite true, and part of my point: The technology hurdle has been cleared by the USSR/Russia, and the Chinese have even installed reasonable upgrades. Namely, a set of solar panels and a version of our docking system, both of which turn one half of the spacecraft stack into a small space station. They'll return to the station with another Shenzou, and leave more behind, expanding it in size.

As far as safety costs go, you have kind of a conservation of effort effect.

Our model: spend lots of money and employ lots of people to avoid multiple and often losses of craft and crew. This isn't an unreasonable way to go, if the people in charge of the money don't have a stroke over the occasional tragedy, a la Columbia. It seems our skins are a little thin, here.

China's model: spend less, buy off-the-rack (with some taloring) and accept a little uncertainty. They are still avoiding all the risk they can, but they'll still less risk-averse than we. They have the potential to go further and faster than we, but with more losses. With their command economy and whatnot, they'll weather it.

(Early) Commercial Aviation's model: Lots of independent inventors and smaller companies crashing and burning all around you, but a few smart and stout folk creating working aircraft. A lot of people lost a lot, but it was theirs to lose. The result is a low safety cost. There are a lot of dead ends and wasted effort this way, too, though.