WASHINGTON There may be more behind the launch last month of China's Shenzhou spacecraft -- a prototype for a piloted space capsule -- then merely using its rocket to send astronauts into space.

The rocket that launched the capsule is central to strengthening Chinas bid as a new commercial space power. The new technology used to loft the Shenzhou may also serve to give a new life to commercial sales of the larger Long March launch vehicles from which the capsules carrier rocket evolved.

How that happened might also give details of a joint effort in sharing space technology between Russia and China -- or help make the case for stolen Western technology.

The Wests interest in Chinas potential as a commercial space transportation vendor lies with its family of Long March space boosters; and in particular the Long March 2-E and 3-B.

These rockets are part of a family of boosters that give China the ability to launch satellites and payloads ranging from small experimental platforms to large telecommunication satellites and, as of November 20, piloted spacecraft.

According to Chinese space analyst Chen Lan, China offers 16 different configurations of the Long March model. There have been 67 launches of the rockets with 60 flights into orbit. Lan says that of these, there have been 56 successful launches, seven failures, and four partial successes. He calculates 21 commercial Long March flights have orbited a total of 76 satellites of various types.

The first commercial Long March rocket capable of servicing large telecommunications satellites was developed in 1988 and made its inaugural test flight on July 16, 1990. Specifically designed to lift U.S. and Western commercial communications satellites, the Long March 2-E consisted of a two-stage rocket with four strap-on boosters firing at liftoff.

Each of the strap-on boosters use a single liquid-fueled rocket engine which itself was an improved version of the engine powering the first stage. That first 1990 test launch had a mixed record -- a Pakistani satellite was orbited, but a test of a communication satellite model failed.

Two years later, the 2-E fired up for the launch of an Australian communications satellite, but the launch was aborted on the pad. The second attempt was a success, orbiting the satellite safely. A third launch in December 1992 failed when the rocket and its satellite payload blew up shortly after liftoff.

An August 1994 launch was successful, but on January 25, 1995 a Long March 2-E with the Apstar 2 satellite exploded 25 seconds after takeoff. The debris that fell killed 27 people on the ground. In September 1996 one of the Long Marchs customers on an earlier, successful launch, the Hong Kong-based Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. sued the rockets maker -- the Great Wall Industry Corp. -- saying that a November 1995 launch was so rough that one of the satellites antennas was damaged.

A Long March 3-B, a design similar to the 2-E and also capable of lifting commercial communications satellites triggered a midair explosion in February, 1996. The rocket rose from its launch pad only to pitch over seconds after takeoff and impact a nearby hillside resulting in an undetermined number of civilian casualties. The rocket had been carrying the Loral-built Intelsat 708 satellite. Loral is a U.S. company.

In May of this year, U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox (R.-California) released a report that strongly suggested that Loral and satellite maker Hughes both provided technical assistance to China to improve the Long Marchs flight performance. The assistance came in the aftermath of the Long March 2-E and 3-B explosions, the report claimed. Such technology is banned under current export laws.

China and the two U.S. firms rejected the accusations, with China responding by saying that its own rocket engineers were able to restore the Long March to service without the benefit of U.S. rocket technology. But some analysts in the U.S. doubted the Chinese claims.

Henry Sokolski, head of the Washington, D.C.-based Nonproliferation Education Center strongly suggested that China had help in some form of technology transfer to make changes to the Long Marchs flight systems. He pointed out that following the February 1996 explosion there have been 20 launches of the Long March with but one failure -- the longest stretch of successful launches in the vehicles history.

With the issue of missile and rocket technology transfer simmering in the background, China conducted its Shenzhou launch on November 20. Boosting the capsule into orbit was a new version of the Long March, the 2-F. China announced that it had benefited from a cooperative space technology program with Russia that included help with the space capsule and launch escape system designs. Western analysts also suggested that the aid included modern rocket engine designs, as well as improved launch vehicle guidance and computer technology.

"Certainly the successful Long March 2-F flight may in fact herald the replacement of the 2-E by a better launch vehicle over time," space analyst Charles P. Vick told space.com.

"The PRC [People's Republic of China] may well want to retrofit the Long March 2-F class technology into its commercial satellite industry launch facilities which would seriously enhance its commercial quality control," Vick said. "This is a good business investment verses the existing facilities," he added.

The new 2-F is a modification of the older 2-E design, analysts say, featuring a stretched series of strap-on boosters, each with two engines. The 2-E, 3-B and 2-F all use the same type of rocket fuel as well. The new 2-F also had a launch shroud and escape rocket that fits over the space capsule. China said that the rocket was able to insert the Shenzhou capsule into a precise orbit. This same guidance technology can be used on a commercial rocket to precisely orbit the satellites of commercial customers.

The issue of whether stolen U.S. rocket technology or the secret transfer of Russian rocket designs had the most to do with the new improved version of the Long March is likely to be debated in Congress next spring as a follow-on to last Mays Cox report.

Satellite makers say that they seek rides on the Long March because of its availability, and also because their own customers want to curry favor with China or seek access to their market for communication services.

The Long Marchs mixed performance record has always been a hindrance to those sales. So the effect of even one new Long March sale to a foreign satellite maker could have significant consequences for todays fluid market for launch services which is shaped by the sales of large telecommunication satellite and of smaller mobile and wireless satellite systems.

The large telecommunication customers that choose other launchers most often select Frances Ariane 4, the U.S. Delta 2 or 3, or possibly the larger Atlas 2 or 3 series.

The smaller, mobile satellite makers launch constellations made up of dozens of satellites. These satellite builders have often mixed Long March and Delta launches, with the Delta being used for launch of the primary constellation and the Long March servicing the replacement spares.

An improved commercial 2-F would serve to make the carrier more attractive, especially to European and other Asian payload makers who are not bound by existing and stringent U.S. satellite export restrictions. Today, such restrictions require White House approval for each U.S.-made satellite whose makers wish to use the Long March to launch their craft. But even with the restrictions, anything that enhances the commercial utility of the Long March family -- even the advent of piloted spaceflight - could ultimately help improve its desirability as a commercial space transport.