Latest / Made of Stars / NASA's Delays Moon Missions to 2025 and 2026

Transcript

NASA's Delays Moon Missions to 2025 and 2026 · Made of Stars

0:00
Warning. The following podcast contains an entertaining look at astronomy, physics, and
0:04
space news throughout the known universe. Listeners have been known to learn about astronomical
0:08
phenomenon, the scientific method, and expanded vocabulary to include terms like quasar asterism
0:13
and uranus. Listen, that's your own risk. Go ahead. When made
0:23
of stars, made them stars, made sizes. When made of stars,
0:33
you could be from high they would New Mexicomus. Where a stars? When
0:54
we are made of stars. I'm West Carroll, joined by my good friend
0:57
doctor Sean Cruising from Columbus State Universities Coca Cola Space Science Center. Hey Sean,
1:03
good morning, Wes. Good to be here with you today. All
1:04
right, we have got some big news when it comes to the Moon.
1:08
A couple of stories that I guess are a little and one's unfortunate. The
1:14
other is also unfortunate, just in the sense that we now have an official
1:19
race to the Moon that is going on, and we know that we're trying
1:23
to get back to the Moon. So one involves a mission that has not
1:29
did not succeed as hoped in one that we've been talking about for a while
1:33
now. And then the other involves a delay for NASA and their Moon missions.
1:38
But let's start with the Peregrine because this was an attempt at trying to
1:44
get a lander back on the surface of the Moon, and this is not
1:48
going to happen. Yes, So I guess maybe the preface for both of
1:53
these stories that's appropriate is that space is hard. It's difficult to get a
2:00
vessel into into space in the first place, and then to land it successfully
2:06
on another body in the Solar System is extraordinarily difficult. And if you've been
2:12
a faithful listener to the podcast over the last several months, you've just talked
2:15
about many failed missions to the Moon, or even missions that succeeded that had
2:22
trouble after they were there. It's just that getting getting a vehicle to another
2:27
planet, landing it in what they call a soft landing, and having it
2:31
then operate correctly after the soft landing takes place is a very hard set of
2:37
tasks to complete, and even with the best technology it does it, it
2:44
often does not succeed. And now we've seen yet another one of those missions
2:47
where that's true. This this mission from a company called Astrobotics, headquartered in
2:53
Pennsylvania, it's called the peregrine failed on you know, shortly after lifting off,
3:00
actually just getting into orbit. One of what they what they assume happened
3:04
is one of the on board fuel tanks, which is pressurized with helium,
3:07
which is an inert gas, was maybe over pressured by the helium and seems
3:14
to have ruptured or exploded or something, and therefore letting all the fuel leak
3:19
out and also damaging the spacecraft. There's very little chance of a good landing
3:23
for the Paragrim mission. So we talk a lot about missions, and it
3:29
seems like it often comes up when we're talking about SpaceX. But when we
3:32
talk about missions and what could be sort of varying levels of success. Uh,
3:38
SpaceX has had launches where they've said, this is a successful launch,
3:43
but it blew up shortly after takeoff, or this is a successful mission even
3:46
though it blew up the launch pad and you know, sent debris all over
3:50
the place. When you when it comes to and you talk about this being
3:54
hard, getting something to the surface of another world is difficult, and that's
4:01
very much under selling it. It's next to impossible to do. But when
4:05
you're talking about a mission that the whole objective is putting it there for it
4:10
to do things, for science to take place, and especially when we look
4:15
ahead and we're not quite to the story yet about NASA and delaying things for
4:18
the Moon mission. But the eventual goal there is to put people back on
4:21
the Moon, and that is, of course, like it has to be
4:25
one hundred percent successful or it's not successful at all. Yeah, and you're
4:30
right about SpaceX. We talk about the agile development process, which is an
4:36
engineering model where they don't mind blowing up some things and breaking some eggs along
4:40
the way to make the omelet. But in this case, there's really not
4:45
much redeeming about the mission for at least not for Astrobotics and the Paragrin mission,
4:51
because they're just simply not going to make their target. And even even
4:56
if they make it to the Moon, which they might still on a glide
4:59
path, just gonna slam into the Moon at a high rate of speed and
5:02
not really accomplish any of the objectives. Had it been successful, it would
5:08
have been the first successful lander from the United States in fifty years on the
5:15
Moon, which is an interesting thing. It also would have been the first
5:19
ever commercially built lunar lander from the US, totally commercially built, so a
5:26
couple of milestones that now won't be achieved, at least in terms of a
5:30
successful landing. And yeah, it's unfortunate for Paragrin. No real rays of
5:34
sunshine here, no sort of Well, at least we learned X, Y
5:40
and Z. I mean, they probably will take lessons back about hydrogen or
5:44
i'm sorry, helium pressurization in their fuel tanks and how to engineer that.
5:48
But quite honestly, that's kind of a hollow victory right there. And so
5:53
the one thing that did work on this mission, though, that is a
5:56
success, doesn't really have to do with Astrobotic and their lander. It has
6:00
to do with the ride to space that they chose, because they chose to
6:04
write up on United Launch Alliance's brand new rocket called the Vulcan Rocket, and
6:11
the Vulcan is a heavy lift vehicle. It's ULA's newest ride to space,
6:19
and it seems that that seems to have gone off without a fault. It
6:21
seems to have been a very successful ride to space, even though the vehicle
6:28
itself failed. So ULA is probably celebrating today that their Vulcan rocket was successful.
6:33
Unfortunately, astrobotics and their peregrine payload, their lander to go to the
6:40
Moon not gonna make it, not gonna be okay, and looks like they'll
6:44
be back at the starting board. So one of the versions of this story
6:47
that I have seen on social media relates to the Roddenberry family. There are
6:54
remains of some of the Star Trek Roddenberry family, more than one member of
6:59
the family. I guess that was going to be taken to the Moon.
7:02
I guess there's some others as well. But now there's and I've seen headline
7:06
after headline, well they're just going to be floating around in space now,
7:10
which I think is a little poetic for you know, Roddenberry's but obviously not
7:15
the objective that was intended for them to be resting on on the Moon.
7:21
So if you see a headline talking about remains in this mission, that's what
7:27
they're talking about. Now. Maybe it could still end up on the Moon.
7:30
I don't know, you know, if it does have a hard hard
7:33
landing, but it sounds like maybe they just may be drifting forever in space,
7:38
which I think that's kind of sweet. That's a little poetic, isn't
7:41
it. It's not. It's not the worst thing, right, I mean,
7:44
you're going where no man has gone before, the final frontier, right,
7:47
yes, out there in the at least it's in the Solar System's final
7:50
frontier. But yeah, okay, sure, why not? I mean,
7:54
yes, I think I think that anytime, anytime you put any manner of
8:00
payload on a rocket bound for space, there has to be the understanding that
8:07
the system might fail. And yeah, Wes, that does include living,
8:13
breathing human beings, right, And so it's one of the reasons why NASA
8:18
and other agencies like SpaceX that send people up to space on rockets are so
8:24
darn careful trying to get make sure they are getting everything just right. And
8:30
that's what I was going to say. If people are this interested in human
8:33
remains, Yes, it certainly becomes a much bigger deal when it's live humans,
8:41
which I guess is a good place to transition to our next story,
8:43
which is about NASA deciding to push back the Moon mission. Now this isn't
8:50
really it's breaking news, and then it's now released, it's now public knowledge.
8:54
But this was kind of headed in that direction already. Yeah, so
8:58
NASA has evaluated all of the things that are taking place that have to come
9:03
together successfully in order to launch people to space. Right, that's what we're
9:07
talking about now. Aboard the Artemis missions, which is the rocket they're using
9:15
for that is the SLS, the Space Launch System, the space vehicle they're
9:18
using is the Orion spacecraft. And so the plan is to in Orian I'm
9:26
sorry, in the Artomis two mission, to put people in the Orion spacecraft
9:31
and fly them around the backside of the Moon, much like Apollo eight did
9:35
back in nineteen sixty eight, fly around the Moon, bring them back home,
9:41
and then test all the systems aboard that spacecraft on that trip, and
9:46
then on the subsequent Artemis three mission to actually fly them to the Moon and
9:52
have them dock with a lander. That lander, of course, is currently
9:56
the leading version is the SpaceX Starship, and so everything has to go right,
10:03
not only with the Orion space capsule, not only with the Space Launch
10:07
System, but also with the SpaceX Starship in order to complete Artemis three.
10:13
Now, the schedule had been that Artemis two, the flight around the back
10:18
side of the Moon, would go next year or sometime later this year,
10:22
or rather twenty twenty four. I forgot we had a new year here twenty
10:24
twenty four, and that Artemis three would go next year twenty twenty five.
10:30
Both of those have now been pushed back a year, so now it looks
10:33
like Artemis two will be delayed until at least September of twenty twenty five,
10:41
that's the flight around the back side of the Moon, and then Artemis three
10:45
delayed until at least September of twenty twenty six, two and a half years
10:50
from now, which you know, if you're if you're really a space enthusiast
10:56
and you want to see people back on the Moon, this is disappointing news.
10:58
Also if you happen to be an Artemis astronaut waiting to go on your
11:03
trip to space, I don't know if it's disappointing news or not. You
11:07
want them to get it right, much like we were just talking about.
11:11
You don't want any systems to fail. You want them to be careful.
11:15
You want everything to pass readiness inspections, and you want the heat shields of
11:18
your spacecraft to work, which it looks like that's kind of where the issues
11:24
were. Some of the hardware readiness on Oriyan and SLS, and then specifically
11:28
the heat shields on Oriyan weren't coming to pass the kinds of tests that they
11:35
needed to in the right timeframe. So they're pumping the brakes on the whole
11:41
Artemis missions and we're going to be a little bit longer getting people up to
11:46
the Moon than what we expected. Well, I'm sure that you're right.
11:50
The safety is the ultimate goal, especially if their hope is to be one
11:52
of the people on the mission on that's actually headed to the Moon. But
11:58
they I'm sure there's some that are disappointing. You got to have some that
12:01
are maybe in the in the final throes of they have that window that's closing
12:05
of their opportunity to go up. I mean, think about Olympians when you
12:09
know we had COVID and we had delays with the Olympics, and it caused
12:13
some of the athletes to go, I'm not going to still be able to
12:16
do this in six months or whatever. So there's probably some looking at it
12:20
going I guess I'm probably not going to get to go to the Moon.
12:24
So in that sense, I'm sure there's probably some that are disappointed or maybe
12:28
their plans for life beyond what they're doing might cause a problem for it.
12:33
Period. But but you're right, ultimately the goal is to get them there
12:37
safely and get them home. We've seen that happen in the history of human
12:41
space exploration. We've seen the very thing that you're discussing, where astronauts were
12:46
schedule for a mission, there was some kind of a setback, some kind
12:50
of a failure that caused some long time delay, and certain astronauts have had
12:54
to kind of drop away from certain programs or certain flights because basically what you're
12:58
saying, life circumstances changed, or you know, there were other considerations health,
13:05
health, and otherwise that caused them to step away. So hopefully that
13:07
won't happen for the Artemis astronauts. Hopefully they knew, you know, when
13:11
they selected these people, that the timeframe could slip a little bit and reasonable
13:16
accommodations. I certainly, we certainly don't have any information on this podcast of
13:20
anybody looking to drop away, but one could imagine that if the time frame
13:24
began to drag on too long, that you might have those kinds of unfortunate
13:28
results. And I'm not necessarily even speaking specifically to these next two missions.
13:33
I'm just thinking about the missions beyond that, because there's probably going to be
13:37
some that we're hoping to be part of, you know, subsequent missions beyond
13:41
Artemis three, Uh, that are maybe looking at it going all right,
13:46
maybe I'm not going to be able to be on one of those down the
13:48
line if it gets pushed back, you know anymore. Especially Yeah, one
13:54
of the Artemis goals, one of their stated goals, in fact, it's
13:58
even a slogan of the program is back to the Moon for good, right
14:01
back to the Moon to stay basically. And so this is a first step
14:07
toward lunar colonization. And you have people who are working on those concepts and
14:09
ideas, astronauts who are certainly you know, at least hoping to be selected
14:15
for those kinds of missions and doing some training and some development in those programs.
14:20
And now these delays, yeah, they could they could disrupt some of
14:22
those kinds of plans and some of the some people's careers. All right,
14:26
Well, that's disappointing but understandable. For that story, Let's move over to
14:33
another big win for the James Web Space Telescope. Yeah, lots of fun
14:37
stories coming out of New Orleans, Louisiana. You might not think of New
14:43
Orleans as a mecca for astronomical output. However, this week the American Astronomical
14:50
Society Meeting is taking place down there, and so all of the astronomers around
14:56
the world, but mostly from the US, are gathering at the two hundred
15:01
and forty third American Astronomical Society Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana. And so
15:05
if you've seen a preponderance of space related stories in the last week, it's
15:11
probably because all of these news releases are being put forth because all of the
15:16
astronomers are gathered together and they're sharing their results. This is one of those
15:20
stories. So NASA's James Webspace telescope researchers using that telescope have just put out
15:26
a really cool image of a brown dwarf star. This is a star that
15:33
is they considered a failed star in the sense that it didn't quite have enough
15:39
mass to turn on thermonuclear fusion. But it also has properties that don't really
15:45
allow it to be a planet, so it's kind of in this weird gray
15:48
zone between a really big gas giant planet and a really small star. So
15:54
they call it a failed star, but its official designation the term is a
15:58
brown dwarf. So brown dwarf are actually putting off radiation. They're putting off
16:03
light in the form of infrared. And that's why James Webspace telescope is good
16:07
at observing them, because it's an infrared telescope. And so this brown dwarf
16:11
happens to be located about forty light years from Earth, which in the grand
16:17
scheme of things, is more or less right in the backyard. It's not
16:19
that far away. I wouldn't want to walk forty light years, but you
16:23
know, in terms of the size of the galaxy, it's not all that
16:26
far away. And so the interesting thing is there appears to be aurora phenomenon
16:32
or northern lights. Think about those things taking place in the atmosphere of this
16:38
brown doar star. Now we've seen northern light phenomenon certainly on Earth. We've
16:42
seen it also in Jupiter and Saturn, and we've even seen it around moons
16:48
like Saturn's moon Enceladus. But in all of those cases it's due to the
16:55
Sun in our own solar system ejecting particles and off into space. Those particles
17:02
in radiation pieces interact with the atmospheres of these worlds. We've just described,
17:08
and particularly the magnetic field and then the atmosphere of those worlds, and that
17:12
causes the glowing air that we see both in our atmosphere also in the atmospheres
17:18
of Jupiter, et etc. So that's great. But this brown dwarf that
17:25
they now have images from JWST that apparently show it having aurora phenomenon, it's
17:30
not close to another star, so, in other words, it doesn't have
17:34
something like the Sun that's providing a stream of charged particles that could be responsible
17:41
for the aurora. So that means that this thing may have some other source
17:48
of particles generating the northern lights or the aurora phenomenon in its atmosphere. And
17:56
researchers from this project have said this. There's a quote. If you want
18:00
to read about this, check out space dot com. By the way,
18:03
does this we have seen this kind of phenomenon in planets with a nearby star
18:07
that can heat the stratosphere, but seeing it in an object with no obvious
18:11
external heat source is wild. Again a quote from one of the scientists working
18:15
on the project. So the whole notion is something else has to be causing
18:22
the interaction between particles and atmosphere. That generate northern lights. So obviously,
18:27
one of the things that could be is that there's just a star we don't
18:30
see, right, there's some source of radioactive particles coming from some star that
18:37
we haven't detected yet. But that's not likely because the area has been mapped
18:41
and they don't see one. So another thing could be it could just be
18:45
a stream of particles coming in from interstellar space, in other words, not
18:49
necessarily unidentified single star, but kind of a river of particles flowing in between
18:56
stars that this brown dwarf just happens to be in the stream of, which
19:00
is very interesting. Or it could be some internal process within the brown dwarf.
19:07
Maybe the brown dwarf has some kind of an energetic process in its internal
19:11
areas that is generating particles streaming up to the neosphere of that object and then
19:18
causing it to glow. Or finally, one other piece of conjecture is maybe
19:22
it has some nearby moon that's being ripped apart by gravitational forces, and the
19:29
particles from the nearby moon are feeding into the magnetic field around this brown dwarf
19:34
and then into the upper atmosphere, causing particles to glow. So all of
19:38
these are what we would call swags, and a swag is an acronym for
19:44
some wild guess to fill in the a for yourself. So some wild guests
19:48
about what this could possibly be. But it's an interesting story, and it's
19:52
a new phenomenon, and it's newly released from THEAS meeting in New Orleans,
19:57
Louisiana. Any of those, I guess would be a fascinating reason for it
20:03
coming up after a quick break, America's most experienced astronaut hangs up her suit.
20:11
We'll talk about that right after this, all right. So when I
20:37
saw this headline, I thought, oh my gosh, Peggy Whitson is retiring
20:41
and they're retiring her jersey into the rafters. But that's not exactly what's going
20:48
on here. I mean, she's already retired on one space suit for to
20:53
go into the private sector, but now she's retiring a different one. But
20:56
this is a little different than what it seems like. She's not out of
21:00
the business yet, No is the answer. So but the clever headline writers
21:06
at collectSPACE dot com wrote up an interesting headline, and so if you see
21:11
it, you might think the very thing that Wes just said, which is
21:14
that Peggy is going to step away from spaceflight in general, because the headline
21:18
read something to the effect of America's most experienced astronaut hangs up her suit,
21:22
And certainly, I, like Wes, when I read that, I thought,
21:25
Oh, it is Peggy Whitson retiring, Ladies and gentlemen. Peggy Whitson
21:30
is a true American hero. She is the US astronaut who has spent the
21:34
most days in space, six hundred and seventy five days in orbit aboard three
21:41
different NASA missions and one private space flight from the company called Axiom. That
21:48
space flight is the AX two mission. So Peggy has a substantial amount of
21:55
space experience. And so when I read that headline, like Wes just described,
21:59
I thought, wow, is she going to actually retire? But no,
22:03
hanging up the suit in this case is literal. It's a suit that
22:07
she wore a space aboard the AX two mission, and it's going to be
22:11
hanging up at a place where you can go see it at the Johnson Space
22:17
Centers Space Center, Houston Museum, and Peggy's Axiom flight suit is going to
22:22
be on display for a period of time and you can actually go see it.
22:26
Turns out Oddly enough, I happen to be going out to Houston this
22:30
weekend. I might have to pop in there and check out Peggy Suit,
22:33
So that might be something I do as a field trip this very weekend.
22:38
But some kind of fun things about Peggy. Peggy is again a person who
22:47
spent a lot of time in space. She's also done some other very adventurous
22:49
things, and she is an astronaut for a commercial space company, which is
22:56
just a very interesting thing. A quote from Peggy says this, I just
23:00
I'm just loaning it so folks can see that commercial space, like Axiom,
23:04
is in work now and is real. I wanted people to be able to
23:08
see it and be inspired not just by NASA's space program, but but what
23:14
commercial space is doing as well. So again, Peggy kind of kind of
23:18
promoting the company Axiom, which is no problem, she works for them,
23:22
right, but also just promoting the endeavor of commercial space flight in general.
23:27
And so yeah, a fun thing. By the way, the SpaceX I'm
23:30
sorry, the Axiom ax two suits. I said the word SpaceX because they
23:36
flew to space aboard a SpaceX rocket. By the way, it just kind
23:38
of got in my head. But the ax two suits are very cool looking
23:42
if you check them out, they're very stylish, right, So check out
23:47
Peggy Suit. You can see it online or you can go down to Space
23:48
Center Houston and check it out for yourself. I love her quote though,
23:52
and I think that's such an important stage in this as we're seeing more and
23:59
more companies getting involved in the business itself. It is important and I think
24:04
that's a great quote where she just says, I wanted people to be able
24:07
to see it and know that it's real, that this commercial endeavor side of
24:11
this is in work now and it's real. It's a great quote. We
24:17
got another story here, and I'd always like when we get these kinds of
24:19
stories because they basically sort of show the process the way science just kind of
24:26
works, science in motion, science and progress. And this story sort of
24:30
relates to We've had a few of these in the last couple of months where
24:33
it's kind of changed the way people understand science understands the way certain things take
24:37
place, especially when it comes to the formation of planets around young stars.
24:44
What we want to know when we look at this as a group of astronomers
24:47
worldwide, we want to know a couple of things. We want to understand
24:51
the process by which planets form and make sure we're right about that. And
24:56
we have certain mathematical models that we apply and try to correlate them with actual
25:03
visual observations and make all that stuff work out. So we want to make
25:07
sure our models are correct about the way we think planets form. But we
25:11
also want to know how fast planets form because they are the locations where we
25:17
might find life in the galaxy or around other stars. So understanding that process
25:25
of star formation and planet formation is really important for us to understand how areas
25:30
in the galaxy that can potentially support other life forms also form, and so
25:37
this is an important question for the lives of stars, but also for the
25:41
lives of living critters that might be out there amongst the stars. So it's
25:45
kind of a twofold investigation. You can check out this story, by the
25:48
way, on Universe today dot com. The headline is the youngest planetary disc
25:53
ever seen has been identified. And the interesting thing about that is not just
26:00
how young it is. By the way, some of the objects discovered in
26:04
the study are potentially less than ten thousand years old, which ten thousand years
26:11
sounds like a long time, but on the lifetime scale of stars is a
26:15
very very short time, and so that's one interesting thing we found these discs
26:22
around those very young stars. However, maybe the more interesting part is that
26:26
within some of these discs, the researchers from Yale that performed these observations found
26:33
evidence of planets already forming and leaving their telltale fingerprints within these discs. There
26:41
are gaps and rings in the discs themselves around these very young what they call
26:48
class zero objects, the very youngest of planetary discs around super young stars,
26:55
and even at the very very young age of less than ten thousand years old,
27:00
we are finding rings and gaps in those in those discs that indicate that
27:07
planets have already begun. For me, now, with that piece of evidence,
27:14
it challenges the mathematics used in the modeling of how we think that planets
27:19
and stars form. It's just too fast. It's happening faster than the mathematics
27:26
of our models can explain. Now, one of my colleagues here at Columbustate
27:32
University, doctor Rosa Williams, and I. She and I were just having
27:34
a conversation just yesterday talking about various models and how we you know, how
27:40
we use them in science, and it's a great reminder to everybody that scientists
27:45
know this. All models are wrong, but some models are useful. Right.
27:52
It's just kind of an axiom that we use right all models. We
27:56
know that every model is not exactly right and can be chat. It's just
28:00
that some models, well, they seem to replicate what we see in observation
28:04
closely enough that the model is useful for some period of time until we have
28:10
to discard it for a better model. So really every model is like a
28:15
snowflake on a hot sidewalk. We know it's going to evaporate, but for
28:18
some period of time, some of those models can actually be useful. Our
28:22
modeling of the Solar system formation has been useful for a number of years,
28:27
although tweaks are certainly being made to it all the time. However, this
28:32
particular observation might challenge everything we put into that model in the first place,
28:37
which means it might be time to chuck the whole model and start over with
28:41
some new ideas. A very interesting time in the continued exploration of space,
28:48
and particularly for those people who try to model the formation of the Solar system.
28:52
All models are wrong, Some models are wronger than others. Is that
28:56
fair? Yes? Indeed, sir, all right, let's talk about at
29:02
the Coca Cola Space Science Center where Saturday, you guys have a home game
29:06
Astronomy Night. Have an Astronomy Night here at Space Science Center. When we
29:11
have what we call a home game, they are here on our facility site.
29:15
We also will take people inside our planetarium and do a tour of the
29:19
nighttime sky. That's going to be hosted by doctor Rosa Williams. Though the
29:23
aforementioned doctor Rose Williams, she'd love to talk with you about models and the
29:26
wrongness of them. She will absolutely talk about wrong models because like me,
29:33
she and she and I are both observational astronomers, and our whole reason for
29:37
living is to shoot down theoretical astronomers and their models. So we like to
29:41
do that anyway. So, but you can join doctor Williams and the astronomy
29:45
team, which consists of lots of students from clumb State University's Coca Cola Space
29:49
Science Center and the Earth and Space Sciences Program, and they will set up
29:53
some telescopes for you and show you the actual nighttime sky. This Saturday evening,
29:59
we have a a variety of these programs throughout the year. You can
30:02
find out that list of nights on our website. You can visit www dot
30:07
CCSSC dot org. Charlie Charlie SamSam Charlie dot org. You can go to
30:12
that website and find the new schedule, the newly posted twenty twenty four Astronomy
30:18
Nights schedule. Some of them are home games, which means they happen here,
30:21
but we also do astronomy nights at our local state parks, both at
30:25
Providence Kyne State Park and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt State Park just north of town.
30:30
And you can find out all of the dates where we'll be setting up
30:33
our telescope showing people the nighttime sky. Once again, just visit the website
30:37
www dot cc SSC dot org and we thank you for listening, and we'll
30:45
do this again next week. Overhead Door Company of Columbus has all of your
30:56
garage door needs covered, residential and commercial service and repairs. If you need
31:00
a new garage door, or you're just looking to upgrade or repair your current
31:04
door, Overhead Door Company of Columbus has you covered. Plus they've got your
31:08
emergency repairs or service covered as well. Seven oh six three five eight forty
31:15
five hundred. Seven oh six three five eight forty five hundred odccolumbus dot com