It does seem somewhat ironic that the Americans will have to rely on their old space race cold war adversaries to get their astronauts into orbit, if only for a short while. However, if the U.S. gets involved in a new space race, it seems likely that China's ambissions, rather than Russia's, will be the motivating factor.

Politics, waning of public support, and competing priorities between NASA and the Air Force resulted in the compromise known as the STS (Space Shuttle), which never lived up to its promise of cheap, routine access to space, which was unfortunate. However, I believe that as early as 1971, there were rumblings in the background at that time criticising the shuttle program as being overly optimistic and unrealistic.

It's too bad that the U.S. did not try to build directly on the Saturn 1B and Saturn V technology. This would have saved a lot of time and money by not needing to invest in new engine and heat shield development (which delayed the Shuttle). An evolved Saturn system today may have had a partially recoverable first stage (combination of parachutes and air bags), and a mini-shuttle could have been used to replace the capsule. This would have been a more evolutionary and cost effective approach.

However, the reality of the early 1970's was that the Shuttle was a lot more glamorous and a good window dressing for NASA in the midst of budget cuts. Missiles and capsules were so yesterday, so boring, so wasteful, and expensive. It was hard to convince the public or the political leadership to continue funding the Saturn program.

Although I'm not a big fan of the Orion system, it does build upon the SRB technology developed for the Shuttle, and that may be a more sensible approach in the near future. Perhaps other expendable boosters (such as the Atlas 5 or Delta-4) will become man-rated in the future. I suppose Europe could do the same with the Ariane-V, which was developed with the intention of launching either a mini-Shuttle (Hermes) or even a souped-up capsule.
So, there will be many options on the table.

My favourite US vs USSR spare-race and money story is the one that surrounds the development of the space pen. The Americans allegedly spent millions on the development of a pen that would write in microgravity. The Soviets went out and bought some pencils.

To state that two shuttles have "exploded in flight" is promulgating mis-information.
The Challenger did indeed "explode in flight", but the unfortunate Columbia disintegrated during re-entry due to a hole smashed in the wing by an errant piece of foam, during the lauch phase.

wow - so the shuttle did not "explode in flight" but it "disintegrated during re-entry"...

Good to know.

If the space race hadn't been politically driven to begin with the natural development of the X-15 "space planes" would have probably evolved into a much more cost effective and 'saner' way to reliably reach orbit.

It's hard to see how the throw-away "spam-in-a-can" approach to space can ever develop into a long-term solution.

I don't buy into your reliability statement. There have been two shuttle disasters. There have I believe been more Soviet/Russian disasters. This going into Space is not without risks and hazards. But to base your argument on the number of folks killed in Space shuttle accidents to those that have died in Russian capsules is like saying the Write Flyer was a safer aircraft than a 747 because fewer folks died in it than in 747 disasters. I think the only failure of the Space Shuttle was that it never came through as the promised (relatively) inexpensive method to put heavy loads into orbit.
On the other hand it was success;
as far as being able to do the job.
To be reusable.
To lead the way in the development of next generation Space hardware etc.

The Russian method of returning from space is not even in the ball park as far as advancing mankind's abilities and techniques in operating between Space and earth. It compares to the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules that parachuted back to earth. To land at an approximate location. Not setting down and landing at a precise location and airfield runway. Indeed the only reason the Russians haven't killed more people with their capsules is that they only carry three man crews.
It is the beauty of the Int. Space station that these technologies whether Russian, US, or whoever are now being shared. It also goes along way to making the exploration and development of Space safer and more economical for all mankind.
Oh, and while laughing about your Pen/Pencil story stop and ponder about the effects of graphite dust from the pencils floating around the space capsule. Possibly shorting circuit boards, and creating a disaster of another type. There was a reason to develop a pen that would work in space. Don't just give half the story. You failed to mention the Russian disaster that wiped out their head man and his team and set back the Russian program a number of years. Indeed it took place while trying to develop a rocket to replace the old TMA 15. So much for your comment about if it's not broke don't fix it.
Both countries have had successes and disasters. I am just very pleased to see that they are working together these days. That we have US and western astronauts being launched to the Space station in Russian rockets, and Russian and eastern cosmonauts going up in the shuttle.

"My favorite US vs. USSR spare-race and money story is the one that surrounds the development of the space pen. The Americans allegedly spent millions on the development of a pen that would write in micro gravity. The Soviets went out and bought some pencils."

Paul Fisher invented the pen independently, and then asked NASA to try it. The US government made no contributions to its development. After the introduction of the AG7 Space Pen, both the American and Soviet (later Russian) space agencies adopted it.

Nice story for illustration purposes, though.

Dear Mr. Bob McDonald, I would sugest you to use Internet before you start writing an article, than it will look much more "scientific".

E.g:

- TMA-15 is wrong, must be TMA14А14

- "Like the Americans, they adopted German engineers who had built V-2 rockets for Hitler and improved on their design." - completly not true. The rocket R7 was absolutly different from copies of german rockets (russian copies was R1 and R2).

- etc. etc...