The business world doesn't put safety first, so there is no worry that the business world will abandon their efforts to put people into space because of the risks. Apart from the restrictions of where we can go, unmanned space exploration is simply cheaper than using people because the "occupant" in an unmanned craft only needs a simple power supply and a drawer to live in. When there is a human crew the entire craft has to be redesigned to keep the people alive, the mission design becomes secondary and the cost goes up dramatically.
I heard the Chinese were getting their space equipment designs from the Smithsonian. A good place to shop for technology and it's free. The design for the stealth bomber wings came from a German WWII bomber residing in the Smithsonian.
I don't why the Russians are still using Soyuz capsules but at this point in time it is the right thing to do. It's concept safely anticipates what can happen when a rocket launch doesn't work right. It's like a seat belt, which will be needed until cars don't crash. Based on real experience to think that every rocket launch is going to work perfect is not facing reality.
We're not at the point where one vehicle can do everything. The capsules need to be crash proof to get people off the planet so long as we are using a giant rocket to get past gravity. Until we have some other kind of heat shield besides tiles glued onto the outer surface of a space traveling ship, the capsule is the safest choice for re-entry. Once out there, a shuttle is a good tugboat to carry people around and fix things because stuff breaks everyday, another issue that needs to be addressed and not ignored. The living quarters is the space station, construction wise, it is the weakest link. Using all three of them together makes low orbital space a workable proposition.
