>>11485953"Anything else" in manned spaceflight means US. It's not like there are many other manned space programs, there were only two original ones.
What do you mean by style? If you mean spherical forms, it's simple physics, a sphere is lighter than any other shape of the same volume. A spherical capsule is self-stabilizing at reentry, you don't need to point it the right side forward. Conic shapes also have their advantages, and have been chosen by Americans. Soviets also used them (ex. TKS). In the pic of the Chinese station above, the sphere is the main berthing node, just like ISS and Mir ones. It just makes physical sense to make it like this.
There's also another difference. Soviet-style station modules are autonomous spaceships which are launched in a traditional way on top of a rocket, and are capable of making their way to the station on their own. American modules are passive habitats which were delivered by Shuttle.
If you mean their habitat internals and color choice, it's a work of Galina Balashova, an industrial designer who developed first interiors for Soviet spaceships and stations, trying to avoid bright/aggressive colors and reflective surfaces. Chinese didn't seem to inherit that.
>>11485955(citation needed) and doesn't make any sense to me. NASA made its first stations from rocket stages, basically. Later ones were designed with pure simplicity in mind, not sharing any legacy with planes, rockets or anything else. Soviets used spheres in Vostok because it was optimal; spherical and close-to-spherical forms took roots in their engineering school. It doesn't have anything to do with submarines, aesthetics or any other legacy outside of spaceflight.
And soviet and american rocketry was originally under the patronage of different military forces - in USSR is was artillery early on, in US it was air force. There's even the difference in terminology - in Russia the launch is still called "firing" among aerospace professionals, for example.
