MOSCOW (AP) -- While NASA frets over the space shuttle's new round of troubles, Russian space officials are glowing with pride for their 40-year old workhorse _ the cramped but reliable Soyuz spacecraft.

When NASA grounded future shuttle flights after a big chunk of insulating foam flew off Discovery's fuel tank during liftoff last week, a senior Russian space official even proposed quickly building several Soyuz spacecraft to evacuate the shuttle's crew of seven together with the international space station's two-man crew if the need arises.

"If we work really hard, we can bring nine people down in next January and February by three Soyuzes," Nikolai Sevastyanov, the head of the state-controlled RKK Energia rocket maker said last week.

Although that proposal seemed to strain the limits of credibility -- the astronauts wouldn't have food and water to last that long -- it reflected the extraordinarily high esteem in which Russian space officials hold their veteran spacecraft.

The Russian manned space program has had no fatalities since three cosmonauts died during re-entry in 1971. Over the past two decades, 14 astronauts have died in space shuttle accidents.

The Soyuz and its unmanned cargo version, the Progress, date back to the mid-1960s and can be used only once, unlike the space shuttles. The Soyuz is decidedly claustrophobic with three cosmonauts cramped in their seats during the entire two-day trip to the station. A Progress can carry only 2.5 metric tons (2.75 tons) of cargo, less than a fifth of what a U.S. shuttle can haul.

Russian space officials and cosmonauts bristle at critics who point to the ship's old age, saying its latest version, the Soyuz TM, is equipped with modern engines and computers and looks similar to the original Soyuz only in general shape.

In the late 1980s, the Soviet space program built its own version of the shuttle -- called the Buran -- which made a successful maiden flight in 1988. Soviet space officials claimed at the time that the Buran was superior to its American rival because of its ability to fly on autopilot and its bigger capacity, but the program was mothballed amid chaos and fund shortages in the run-up to the 1991 Soviet collapse.

Several Buran shuttles have been left rusting in hangars. One sits forlornly in a junkyard adjacent to the railroad tracks that carry Soyuz assemblies to the launching pad at the Baikonur Cosmodrome; another was put on display in Moscow's Gorky Park.

In recent years, with the flow of petrodollars bringing an increase in the Russian space agency's budget, its leaders have begun pondering a Soyuz replacement called Clipper.

Nikolai Moiseyev, the deputy head of the Russian space agency, said recently that the Clipper would be reusable but wouldn't be modeled on the U.S. shuttle or the Buran. "Many experts believe that combining crew and cargo deliveries in one ship is irrational from the point of view of safety," Moiseyev said.

Despite the recent fund increases, Russia's space budget at 18.3 billion rubles (US$638 million; euro531 million) this year is dwarfed by NASA's budget of US$16.5 billion (euro14 billion). Russian space officials are courting the European Space Agency, offering to jointly develop the Clipper and share costs.

During the 2 1/2-year break in the shuttle program after the 2003 Columbia disaster, Russian spacecraft served as the sole link to the international space station. Russia and other nations participating in the station project have been impatient to see the shuttle's return to flight in order to deliver new modules and bulky equipment needed to complete the construction of the space outpost.

In case of a lengthy suspension of further shuttle flights, Russian space officials warned they would charge Americans money for further Soyuz and Progress missions to the station. Previous flights haven't earned Moscow any money because it needed to pay back debts to NASA, but officials said further flights starting 2006 will be conducted on commercial basis.

A Progress costs about US$22 million, and a Soyuz is slightly more expensive.