[Destro]

If you want to commercialize space, you use the shuttle and technologies.

That is pure garbage. The shuttle makes satellite placement what 100 -- 200 percent more expensive than disposable rockets?

[Ivan Ivanov]

As far as I know, the cost of one launched kilogram consist:
Space Shuttle - more than 20,000$
Russian rocket - no more than 5,000$
Russian system MAKS (http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm) - no more 1,000$

I would like to ask you, why nobody mentioned about American project X-38 - Crew Rescue Vehicle (http://members.lycos.co.uk/spaceprojects/x-38.html) which was cancelled in 2001 by reason of cutting NASA' budjet?

[Regulator]

Shuttle mission usually runs around $500 million; they don't charge all of that to one satellite (but then, they haven't carried a commercial satellite since the 80's).

A geosynchronous Atlas launch runs around $120 million; Ariane about $130; Proton about $85 million. To use the shuttle for a Geo launch you'd need to fly an upper stage with the satellite; that'd be probably an extra $20-30 million (I don't know the individual costs of upper stages like the IUS, PAM-D or Centaur; just guessing based on other non-upper stage rocket prices).

[lavaroise]

That is pure garbage. The shuttle makes satellite placement what 100 -- 200 percent more expensive than disposable rockets?

For what mission? All these things are mission design dependent. The Shuttle did not come out of thin air because it was thought to be a nice toy. Reusability has its benefits. And the 100 to 200 percent price tag increase is ludicrous. The shuttle is multimissioned. You talk about pure garbage, you're the one adding nothing to the equation.