Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Commercial Space - Military Space
  NASA seeking commercial use for Launch Pad 39A

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   NASA seeking commercial use for Launch Pad 39A
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-17-2013 01:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA release
NASA Seeks Proposals for Commercial Operations at Launch Pad 39A

NASA released a synopsis on Friday (May 17) announcing plans to issue an announcement for proposals for the commercial use of Launch Pad 39A at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The announcement is expected next week.

Use of the pad by industry is designed to encourage commercial space activities along Florida's Space Coast and fully use the historic launch complex.

Launch Pad 39A originally was designed to support NASA's Apollo Program and later was modified to launch space shuttles. Today, the agency is modernizing nearby Launch Pad 39B to support government and commercial launches, including NASA's heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft, which will provide an entirely new capability for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

"We remain committed to right-sizing our portfolio by reducing the number of facilities that are underused, duplicative, or not required to support the Space Launch System and Orion," said Kennedy Center Director Bob Cabana. "Launch Complex 39A is not required to support our asteroid retrieval mission or our eventual missions to Mars. But it's in the agency's and our nation's best interest in meeting our commitment and direction to enable commercial space operations and allow the aerospace industry to operate and maintain the pad and related facilities."

Assessments conducted by NASA show Launch Pad 39A could serve as a platform for a commercial space company's launch activities if the company assumes financial and technical responsibility of the complex's operations and management. Commercial use of the pad would further support NASA's goal to encourage the commercial use of property the agency does not need for the foreseeable future.

Kennedy is positioning itself for the next era of space exploration, transitioning to a 21st century launch facility with multiple users, both private and government. A dynamic infrastructure is taking shape, designed to host many kinds of spacecraft and rockets capable of sending people on America's next adventures in space.

To view the announcement, visit Kennedy's Business Opportunities.

Space Possum
Member

Posts: 32
From: USA
Registered: Feb 2008

posted 05-20-2013 09:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Space Possum     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you haven't taken the up-close tour of this pad, you better hurry! It wont remain in its Shuttle-era configuration for long if it's tasked for other uses. And the tours wont get up close either.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-23-2013 05:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NBC News reports that Blue Origin and SpaceX are competing to take over 39A.
Thanks to Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos' backing, Blue Origin is one of the country's most financially stable rocket ventures, but it has also had one of the lowest profiles — until now.

The company, based in an industrial area south of Seattle, is waiting to hear whether it can take over one of NASA's crown jewels: Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where the first and the last space shuttle flight blasted off. And Bezos is competing with another billionaire, SpaceX's Elon Musk, to get it.

...both Musk and Bezos are eyeing the launch pad because, for all their billions, it's still challenging to build an orbital launch pad from scratch. Kennedy Space Center would be ideal, because it already has the infrastructure as well as the coastal range clearances for orbital launches. As an illustration of how tough it is to create a new pad, SpaceX has been looking into creating a new commercial launch facility for more than two years, but a deal still hasn't been reached.

SpaceX spokeswoman Christina Ra told NBC News that 39A wouldn't take the place of a future commercial launch facility. "Top priorities for 39A would be for commercial crew [launches to the space station] and Falcon Heavy missions, though we'd be able to launch all missions on our East Coast manifest," Ra said in an email.

...Blue Origin would run 39A as a multi-use facility, allowing other launch providers to send their rockets into space from the pad for a price. "We're open to everyone," Meyerson said. "We think we have the technical background and we have the long-term financial commitment to make a multi-user pad at KSC successful."

One of Blue Origin's customers could be United Launch Alliance, which currently sends government and commercial payloads into space from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. ULA's Atlas 5 rocket is slated to be used by two other SpaceX competitors, the Boeing Co. and Sierra Nevada Corp., to send crews and cargo to the space station and perhaps other orbital destinations as early as 2016. Blue Origin may also use the Atlas 5 while it develops its own rocket.

Blue Origin's director of strategy and business development, Bretton Alexander, said ULA and at least one other launch provider are supporting Blue Origin's bid for Launch Complex 39A.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-26-2013 07:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Two congressmen have written NASA this week expressing "strong concerns" that the space agency might award use of a Kennedy Space Center launch pad to one company, SpaceX, Florida Today reports.
U.S. Reps. Frank Wolf and Robert Aderholt, both members of a House subcommittee that approves NASA budgets, said Launch Complex 39A is a "unique, taxpayer-funded asset" that should be available to multiple rocket launchers.

"It is surprising that NASA appears to be racing to lease LC-39A with little transparency and absent Congressional consent," they wrote to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

Cozmosis22
Member

Posts: 294
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011

posted 07-26-2013 12:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cozmosis22     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Have to agree with the Congressmen. That launch pad is a national asset and one not to be leased out to a particular company which may be favored by the current Administration.

Just say no to this silly "right-sizing our portfolio" proposal.

Pad 39A ~ let it be.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-26-2013 12:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Letting Pad 39A "be" is not an option.

The congressmen are not suggesting allocating more funds for the upkeep of the launch pad, so it either needs to be turned over to a commercial entity, which can then fund its required routine maintenance, or it will, sooner than later, become of no use to anyone.

As noted above, SpaceX is not the only company that is competing for use of the pad. Blue Origin has put in a bid with support from United Launch Alliance.

Cozmosis22
Member

Posts: 294
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011

posted 07-26-2013 11:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cozmosis22     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The congressmen are not suggesting allocating more funds for the upkeep of the launch pad...
Perhaps, like every other federal agency, NASA needs to take a serious look at prioritizing spending?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-27-2013 12:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA, at its current budget levels, is beyond prioritizing — it is already rationing between programs.

But let's say it could prioritize... spending money on the upkeep of a launch pad it has no plans to use? That's the very definition of a low priority.

So we're back to square one: either find a new customer for Pad 39A or abandon in place.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 616
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-27-2013 04:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Cozmosis22:
...not to be leased out to a particular company which may be favored by the current Administration.
There is no company favored by the administration.
quote:
Perhaps, like every other federal agency, NASA needs to take a serious look at prioritizing spending?
Congress dictates the priorities.

Cozmosis22
Member

Posts: 294
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011

posted 07-27-2013 10:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cozmosis22     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
Congress dictates the priorities.
Did Congress dictate that NASA set about destroying old buildings at KSC and propose building a new $25+ million Central Campus Complex for bureaucrats in the industrial area?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-27-2013 11:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, Congress did. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directs NASA to examine its real property assets and downsize to fit current and future missions and expected funding levels ― paying particular attention to identifying and removing unneeded or duplicative infrastructure.
It is the sense of Congress that NASA needs to re-scope, and as appropriate, down-size, to fit current and future missions and expected funding levels. Eighty percent of NASA's facilities are over 40 years old. Additionally, in a number of areas NASA finds itself "holding onto" facilities and capabilities scaled to another era.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 616
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-28-2013 04:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Cozmosis22:
Did Congress dictate that NASA set about destroying old buildings at KSC and propose building a new $25+ million Central Campus Complex for bureaucrats in the industrial area?
Have you been in those buildings? How do you know they are bureaucrats? Are front line contractors bureaucrats?

NASA no longer needs to manage operational vehicles and facilities. That paradigm is no longer applicable or needed.

NASA (and USAF) have incubated and nurtured the launch industry and it no longer needs their hands on experience. The launch experience is in industry (and rightly so) and NASA just has to contract for it versus providing itself.

Hence LC-39A should be given to whom ever is going to use it just like the OPFs, HMF, parachute facility, SLF, etc.

Another paradigm needs to changed, Kennedy Space Center (the organization) should be just a tenant at the larger Cape Canaveral Spaceport versus being an operator of the Kennedy Space Center. Instead of supplying spaceport services, NASA should be contracting them.

And again, there is no favored company of the administration.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1057
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 07-28-2013 08:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Politics might play a role in the selection of the private company. Did politics factor into the shuttle and SRB contracts? Elon Musk, while giving to both Democrats and Republicans, also made a contribution to the President's campaign. I'm not sure about the other companies, if they were smart, they would have to.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 616
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-28-2013 09:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Which company is the administration's favorite? Obama was originally scheduled go to a ULA site but security issues prevented it and so SLC-40 was selected. Both ULA and Spacex openly acknowledge this.

Lockheed and Boeing butter both sides of the bread.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-01-2013 10:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said Wednesday (July 31) that a decision on the long-term lease of Pad 39A may be made soon, Florida Today reports:
Bolden said NASA has no use for 39A, which supported the Apollo and shuttle programs, and planned to demolish it unless there was private sector interest.

Now, he said the agency does not want to continue spending the "couple million bucks" it would cost each year to keep the seaside pad from rusting away.

"The problem is, we cannot afford to maintain a facility while the world thinks about it," he said. "We're either going to demolish it, or we're going to let somebody use it and pay for it."

NASA wants to unload responsibility for the pad by Oct. 1, the start of the new fiscal year.

The article notes that NASA plans to use Pad 39B as a multi-use pad, which Bolden has explained to U.S. Reps. Aderholt and Wolf in a response now on its way to Capitol Hill.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1057
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 08-01-2013 10:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How can a company agree to lease the pad by Oct. 1 if they don't know who is getting the commercial contract?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-01-2013 10:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Because neither Blue Origin or SpaceX are intending Pad 39A for commercial crew launches.

SpaceX wants the pad for its Falcon 9 Heavy (and its larger planned iterations) and Blue Origin desires to use the pad for its own suborbital and orbital launches, which are not part of NASA's commercial crew program.

dabolton
Member

Posts: 248
From: Round Lake, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009

posted 08-01-2013 10:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dabolton   Click Here to Email dabolton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How big of a rocket can use the 39A/B pads before the 3 mile safety limit to the VAB is no longer valid?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-01-2013 10:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That consideration was included in the request for proposals:
NASA will evaluate the proposer’s ability to mitigate potential impacts to launch or other operations at KSC or CCAFS.

NASA will evaluate the proposer's capability related to the prevention of potential environmental and safety hazards beyond the LC 39A facility.

Also, any lease agreement will not constitute permission for the tenant to launch any rocket.
Such launches must be approved and licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and NASA expects to be part of that process for purposes of protecting NASA property and persons at the Kennedy Space Center and avoiding interference with NASA launch operations.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-01-2013 11:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It should also be noted that NASA has taken historical preservation into account:
NASA will require access to these artifacts with proper coordination, and they cannot be damaged or modified during the term of any agreement:
  • Orbiter Access Arm (OAA) U70-0503-99 – Attached to the Fixed Service Structure ~195' level

  • Gaseous Oxygen Vent Arm (GOX) U78-0001 – Attached to the Fixed Service Structure ~207-227' level 

  • Emergency Egress Bunker J8-1708– Rubber Room and Blast Room
Other smaller artifacts (e.g., phones and warning lights) will be identified prior to the execution of an agreement.

...NASA has completed notification to the Florida State Historic Preservation Office and no further notifications are required for modifications of the historic places. The Tenant will comply with Artifact recovery requirements as defined in the lease agreement.

dabolton
Member

Posts: 248
From: Round Lake, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009

posted 08-01-2013 11:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dabolton   Click Here to Email dabolton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
That consideration was included in the request for proposals...
So ultimately, a theoretical Falcon Heavy XXX would have to be launched elsewhere just based on physical proximity of existing structures at KSC.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-02-2013 12:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Not necessarily, if it can be demonstrated that the risk to the surrounding area is within NASA's and the FAA's acceptable limits.

SpaceX and Blue Origin were made aware of NASA's concerns and presumably made their proposals accordingly.

Tykeanaut
Member

Posts: 1742
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 08-02-2013 03:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tykeanaut   Click Here to Email Tykeanaut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Demolish it!" It should be a national treasure and protected.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1057
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 08-02-2013 10:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Another benefit would be more use of the VAB.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-02-2013 10:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The lease does not include use of any facilities outside of Pad 39A. A separate agreement would need to be reached for use of the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).

In the past, SpaceX has said that if it used Pad 39A it might prefer to build its own horizontal assembly facility at the pad rather than use the VAB.

Cozmosis22
Member

Posts: 294
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011

posted 08-02-2013 02:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cozmosis22     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dabolton:
How big of a rocket can use the 39A/B pads before the 3 mile safety limit to the VAB is no longer valid?
Can't imagine private enterprise building anything larger more powerful than the old Saturn V anytime soon, so that won't be an issue into the foreseeable future.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-02-2013 02:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In 2010, SpaceX outlined plans for a future (circa 2016) Falcon XX, a launch vehicle as tall as the Saturn V which could put up to 140 tons into Earth orbit (that's 22 metric tons more than the Saturn V).

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-08-2013 11:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Florida Today reports that Blue Origin has filed a formal bid protest with the U.S. Government Accountability Office regarding NASA's plans to lease pad 39A for commercial use.
The protest could impact who ultimately uses the pad, but at a minimum will delay any lease award until the GAO reaches a decision, expected by mid-December.

NASA had hoped to transfer the historic former Apollo and shuttle pad by Oct. 1, the start of a new fiscal year that does not anticipate funding to maintain the facility, estimated at $1.2 million in 2013.

Blue Origin, started by Amazon.com CEO and billionaire Jeff Bezos, would not comment directly on the protest but reiterated its preference for a shared-use arrangement.

"Several major American space launch companies have come forward with interest in operating commercially from (launch complex) 39A and support this multi-user approach," Blue Origin President Rob Meyerson said in a statement. "This is an important issue of national policy and we look forward to working with NASA to expand the use of LC 39A and its return to flight."

NASA must respond to the GAO within 30 days of the protest filed Tuesday.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-12-2013 06:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA statement (via NBCNews.com)
On Dec. 12, 2013, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) notified NASA that it had denied a protest filed against the Agency by Blue Origin LLC on Sept. 13, 2013. In its protest, Blue Origin raised concerns about the competitive process NASA was using to try to secure a potential commercial partner(s) to lease and maintain the Agency's Launch Complex (LC) 39-A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Blue Origin had argued that the language in the "Announcement for Proposals" (AFP) favored one proposed use of LC-39A over others. The GAO disagreed.

The GAO's ruling is posted on the GAO website.

Given today's GAO ruling, NASA is looking forward in the near future to selecting an industry partner for negotiations to lease and operate LC-39A. Permitting use of this valuable national asset by commercial entities will ensure its continued viability and will allow for its continued use in support of U.S. space activities.

The reuse of LC-39A is part of NASA's work to transform the Kennedy Space Center into a 21st-century launch complex capable of supporting both government and commercial users. Kennedy is having success attracting significant private sector interest in its unique facilities. The center is hard at work assembling NASA's Orion spacecraft and preparing its infrastructure for the Space Launch System rocket, which will launch from LC-39B and take American astronauts into deep space, including an asteroid and Mars.

In the meantime, in order to maintain the integrity of the LC-39A competition, NASA will not be commenting on or providing additional information about the LC-39A competition beyond the publicly-released, May 23, 2013 Announcement for Proposals until an agency selection related to LC-39A is made and announced publicly by the agency.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 28344
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-13-2013 01:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA release
NASA Selects SpaceX to Begin Negotiations for Use of Historic Launch Pad

NASA has selected Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., to begin negotiations on a lease to use and operate historic Launch Complex (LC) 39A at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Permitting use and operation of this valuable national asset by a private-sector, commercial space partner will ensure its continued viability and allow for its continued use in support of U.S. space activities.

The reuse of LC-39A is part of NASA’s work to transform the Kennedy Space Center into a 21st century launch complex capable of supporting both government and commercial users. Kennedy is having success attracting significant private sector interest in its unique facilities. The center is hard at work assembling NASA’s Orion spacecraft and preparing its infrastructure for the Space Launch System rocket, which will launch from LC-39B and take American astronauts into deep space, including to an asteroid and Mars.

NASA made the selection decision Thursday after the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest filed against the Agency by Blue Origin LLC on Sept. 13. In its protest, Blue Origin raised concerns about the competitive process NASA was using to try to secure a potential commercial partner or partners to lease and use LC-39A. Blue Origin had argued the language in the Announcement for Proposals (AFP) favored one proposed use of LC-39A over others. The GAO disagreed.

While the GAO protest was underway, NASA was prohibited from selecting a commercial partner for LC-39A from among the proposals submitted in response to the agency's AFP that had been issued on May 23. However, while the GAO considered the protest, NASA continued evaluating the proposals in order to be prepared to make a selection when permitted to do so. After the GAO rendered its decision Thursday in NASA’s favor, the agency completed its evaluation and selection process.

NASA notified all proposers on Friday of its selection decision concerning LC-39A. Further details about NASA’s decision will be provided to each proposer when NASA furnishes the source selection statement to the proposers. In addition, NASA will offer each the opportunity to meet to discuss NASA’s findings related to the proposer’s individual proposal. NASA will release the source selection statement to the public once each proposer has been consulted to ensure that any proprietary information has been appropriately redacted.

NASA will begin working with SpaceX to negotiate the terms of its lease for LC-39A. During those ongoing negotiations, NASA will not be able to discuss details of the pending lease agreement.

Since the late 1960s, Kennedy's launch pads 39 A and B have served as the starting point for America's most significant human spaceflight endeavors -- Apollo, Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz and all 135 space shuttle missions. LC-39A is the pad where Apollo 11 lifted off from on the first manned moon landing in 1969, as well as launching the first space shuttle mission in 1981 and the last in 2011.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2012 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement