The reliability of Soviet space vehicles stood at 50 percent, with three of six test flights ending in a flop in the early 1960s. On May 15, 1960, a reentry module failed to land on Earth in a mishap that was followed by a launch pad explosion of a spacecraft with dogs Damka and Krasavka on board on September 23, 1960.

A father of two, Yuri Gagarin was tipped to be finally replaced with childless German Titov, however, this never saw the light of day. Chief Designer Sergei Korolev played the key role in this decision , insisting that it is Gagarin who should be the first man in outer space. For their part, medics refused to sign a document confirming assurances of safety for Gagarin before, during and after the flight.

The Soviet Mission Control Center, which did not have space TV, recorded at least 40 kilometers of tape when communicating with Yuri Gagarin on April 12, 1961. The “top-secret” tape is currently under lock and key.

During the first twenty seconds of launch, Gagarin’s life was at especially high risk given that no rescue steps were stipulated for this period. In case of a blast, he was instructed to eject himself from the spaceship, a decision that was to be made by the Mission Control Center.

Upon being catapulted, Gagarin was to be salvaged by four beefy guards with the help of a nylon lifesaving net.

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/vostok1.htm#more

My point is that Nasa would not have taken this kind of risk. The whole operation of Yuri’s first space flight was riddled with extreme risk including ejecting from the capsule after rentry to avoid a crash landing.

That being said, Russia IMO has the best safety record for human spaceflight with the Soyuz spacecraft which is testament to simplicity, but has it limits in payload and versatility.

Now, having said that, there were some other considerable differences. The Soviet 2 man capsules had ejection seats – Gemini did not. The Soviets were mindful of safety.

On both sides, on every flight, everyone from the top down was extremely concerned that the rockets, et al, hold together. They were aware there were numerous compromises, work-arounds and weak points which could fail. No flight was a slam-dunk and they were so complicated that sooner or later something would fail. Had to fail. Tolerances were that tight, times so precise, fuels so toxic and reactive, weight v. strength so carefully calculated and unknowns so random and ubiquitous that failure was a certainty somewhere along the line.

Solutions to problems seemed to add complexity which added risk. Technology, including materials and information processing, was driven to the very limits, and then some. And did, on occasion, come back to bite them. Consider the computer warnings on ‘final’ for Apollo 11. The technology had been taken farther than it could handle.

And the project people sweat every launch, just praying that this one would hold together. With the only certainty being there was nothing certain.

The Soviets, contrary to Western propaganda, were safety conscious. And they, too, were in a race. But I don’t see where they used pure oxygen in their capsules and do it all the way through until they got “bit”.

And we’ll need slaves, Conquistadudes and religious fanatics, too.

There is a place for man in space, and there are some jobs only meatware can handle, but imaging the moons of Saturn or bringing back a piece of comet doesn’t require a multibillion dollar, multi-year manned mission. True, only men could service the Hubble, but for what it cost to send them there, they probably could have launched several others.

OTOH, if we found the ruins of a city buried under the Martian sands, or a black hole in orbit around Neptune, THAT might justify sending a crew. What it boils down to is how many robot probes can we send to interesting places in the solar system for the cost of just one manned Mars mission? Or for that matter, one ISS?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of man in space, we need to develop the tech, especially where it can be used to complement and supplement a vigorous unmanned program. I just don’t think its vital, or smart, to focus on that now.

As for the risk, that is not a factor at all. I know I’d sign up for a ride in a heartbeat, and there would be no shortage of qualified volunteers either. Governments who send millions off to war without a second thought aren’t going to be stingy with the lives of a few space crews.