Instant Genius - Is our orbital space at breaking point?

Episode Date: April 21, 2024

When it comes to thinking about sustainability, most of us usually keep our feet on the ground. But as we extend our reach beyond this small rocky planet and out into the solar system, is it time to think about how we use space sustainably too?   Our guest today is Aaron Boley, Associate Professor of astronomy and astrophysics at The University of British Columbia and co-author of Who Owns Space?: International Law, Astrophysics and the Sustainable development of space.   With hundreds of thousands of satellites planned for launch in the next few years, Aaron is warning that our orbital space is getting too crowded and could be heading for a dangerous point of no return.   Is there still time for us to learn from our mistakes down at ground level and build a sustainable future among the stars? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speeds. That's why I chose GoogleFi wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing.

Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore GoogleFi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. GoogleFi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save?

Enough. Enough to get lost! Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected.

When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay. This podcast is sponsored by name, audio and focal. Streaming has made music more accessible than ever, but true listening is about more than ease. It's about quality. British audio experts name audio,

alongside French acoustic specialist focal, combine handcrafted tradition with cutting-edge innovation and high-end materials, delivering digital precision with analogue warmth. So you can experience exceptional sound at home. Music just as the artist intended. Visit name audio.com to learn more. Hello and welcome to Instant Genius,

the bite-sized masterclass in podcast form. Each week, you'll hear from world-leading scientists and experts talking about the most fascinating ideas in science and technology today. I'm Tom Howarth, Trends editor at BBC Science Focus. When it comes to thinking about sustainability, most of us usually keep our feet on the ground. But as we extend our reach beyond this small rocky planet and out into the solar system,

is it time to think about how we use space sustainably too? Our guest today is Aaron Bowley, Associate Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of British Columbia, and co-author of Who Owns Space, International Law, Astrophysics, and the Sustainable Development of Space. With hundreds of thousands of satellites

planned for launch in the next few years, Aaron is warning that our orbital space is getting too crowded and could be heading for a dangerous point of no return. Is there still time for us to learn from our mistakes down at ground level and build a sustainable future among the stars? So, for a lot of people, The concept of sustainability is entangled with life down here on Earth, but you're advocating for us to view how we use space sustainably.

Could you maybe explain then what the concept of space sustainability really is? Absolutely. Well, space sustainability in many ways is not too different from your normal concept of sustainability. But we do actually have to question how we approach the idea of sustainability itself. Do we mean things like having an environment that is stable with our interactions, or do we mean something more like sustainable development, where we have this concept of being able to develop something indefinitely into the future? And this is a lot of what the sustainability goals have in mind, where people today develop things to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of, future generations to also develop. And that's a wonderful thing to think about, to move forward with, but there are limits on the environment. And now, when you take that to space, we have a whole

set of issues that come to play that are different from a lot of people think about on Earth, but also have the same type of theme. So, for example, there's always this belief, it seems. that if we just could get better technology, then that will solve our problem. Or if we could just get more information about the environment, that alone will help us solve the problem. But space sustainability is, at least the way we think about it, is understanding our impact on both the Earth and space system,

as well as understanding where the limits are, where the gaps and the knowledge of those limits are and moving forward in that sense. So in terms of how we're using space at the moment, it seems like the problems with sustainability are arising from low Earth orbit satellites. Right. Could you maybe expand on what the issues are with what we're putting up into space right now? Let me start by first, you know, acknowledging that space has amazing benefits. that neither I nor my colleagues are suggesting otherwise.

In fact, there are amazing advances that are being done every day as a result of our continued access to space. So we want to ensure that that is done in a responsible way. So that's where we're coming from. Now, there are multiple layers that have to be taken into consideration for the health of the space environment. One is something that probably many people have already heard. of, and that's orbital debris, although that is a recent increase in just kind of public

knowledge, just with a lot of the activities that have been going on, movies, and so forth. But orbital debris has been a problem, and it is becoming much more serious problem, now that we have many actors, by that I mean operators in space. But it's not just debris. As we put more and more things up into space, particularly things that transmit and things with large surface areas. We actually are changing the night sky. There's a very human component to that. It's another way that it's disconnecting us from the cosmos, which is many ways of very ironic situation because the use of exploration of space should be connecting us more with the cosmos.

But we're actually changing the night sky. And the primary way that we actually view that on a day-to-day basis is just to look up. And then just the electronic noise and the signals from the spacecraft interfere with scientific study from ground-based observatories. That's another example. And then one more example that I'll just put forward. There are others that we could go into, or the emissions associated with putting all of the material into space and having it come back down. So on the way up, rockets produce a lot of soot, and they have other emissions, depending

on the type of either rocket engine or rocket motor, such as a rocket motor produces a lot of aluminum, and that alumina can have interactions with the ozone and can have effects on climate balance. It has both large effect on climate balance and a secondary effect on ozone, as an example. And then when the material comes in, it ablates in the atmosphere, which is the fancy way of saying it burns up. And that material doesn't disappear. It also gets deposited into the atmosphere. So our access to space is treating the atmosphere like a waste sink. Do you believe then that we've reached, or at least during the process of reaching a tipping point where the way that we've been using space so unsustainably starts to affect life down here

on the ground, astronomical observations, but also the future of space exploration? I do think that we are in unexplored territory for sure, and that we've definitely reached some boundaries, and what the long-term meaning of that is remains unclear. And this is where things are moving much faster than what we can understand how we're changing the system. And that's kind of a big scientific uncertainty that we have at the moment. You brought up the light pollution, and light pollution is a very serious issue for astronomers, and also for humanity. Now, one of the things that I want to really stress to those listening is that many of us have already lost the night sky on a human level just because of city light pollution.

But even with the light pollution terrestrially from cities and urban environments, we could go to parks. We could go to dark places around the world and experience skies that were almost as dark as what our ancestors did. and we can maintain that kind of connection with the cosmos. When we talk about orbital light pollution, there's absolutely nowhere on the planet that you could go to get away from it. And so it is a very different type of pollution. Now, have we reached a tipping point with it? We are now seeing large fractions of images, scientific images,

being polluted by streaks or radio noise, depending on the type of observations that are being done. And that is increasing. At the moment, it is not great, but it's tolerable. We're worried about the projection into the future and what a future of 100,000 or more satellites might look like compared with what we have right now, which is more like 10,000 satellites.

And so that's what we're really worried concerning the light pollution problem. So you mentioned that 100,000 figure that 100,000 satellites could soon be in low Earth orbit. How soon can we expect that scenario to play out and what sort of world will we be living in when it does? Well, we're not entirely sure how quickly this could be done. The 100,000 number comes in from looking at the large systems that have been proposed and the funding that is backing those systems. And so there are roughly somewhere around 100,000, satellites that have significant financial investments, and either by private companies or investors,

or by governments or a combination, that suggests that at least as filed, those satellites could, you know, come to fruition. Now, over the past handful of years, there have been a million paper satellites that have been filed. Now, these paper satellites are just that. They have been filed for Spectrum at the International Telecommunications Union, and a very large fraction of them will never actually be put into orbit. But even if a small fraction of a million is still a lot, and it's growing, so it's really difficult for us to project kind of where we will be, how fast we will get there. The financial backing for some of these constellations is to have them up in the next decade. So I guess what I'm trying to.

to get at and what people at home might want to know is that you mentioned this concept of limits. Yes. And do you have any idea of sort of what those limits are? Is 100,000 the limit? Yeah. Is 20,000 the limit? Are we going to reach that limit today or in 10 years time? Yeah, but this comes to the Earth space system. And so you change one thing and you might accidentally affect another part of that system. In fact, almost certainly you will. And so you try to address, say, the light pollution problem, and you may create worse situations for space traffic management, or you may create other types of issues in terms of the pollution of the atmosphere. You try to address things like casualty risk, and you might make

light pollution worse. So I haven't brought up casualty risk. This is, Literally, when stuff comes back into the atmosphere, it breaks apart and it blights, but pieces, if not designed properly, will make it to the surface, and some of that can come with lethal energies. The probability of any single person getting struck by space debris is extremely small, but the probability is somebody around the world getting hit by space debris, and having a casualty of that is not actually that small. And so there are designs, for example, called Design for Demise, which you ensure that the entire satellite completely ablates.

And in doing so, that ensures the pollution of the upper atmosphere. And so when you say, well, give me a number, give me a number. That's where the problem is. We say, okay, this is the number. If we look at this particular thing in a very siloed way, and we fix maybe a whole bunch of other variables that could be associated with that. well, then these other knobs start turning. And so, for example, the light pollution problem is a product of not just the number of satellites, but the altitudes of the satellites, the surface area of the satellites, as well as the number.

And so if we have a whole bunch of cubesats, those will create a whole set of issues for different aspects of space sustainability. In terms of being able to see an individual satellite move across the sky, that becomes much harder now. You could still have glints where it turns in a certain direction. Suddenly you see a flash like you have a mirror and you're shining a mirror at something. You can still have those. And if you have a lot of satellites, you can have a lot of those. And so how does that impact?

Well, that comes to the design of the spacecraft itself. And so there's not a fixed number that I could give you because it's all based on what is actually being put up into orbit. And this is what makes it very difficult and frustrating. everyone involved, whether it's the industry, scientists, or government, because there's the growing recognition of this problem, and it's a problem that is constantly morphing based on how we're trying to engage it. Right. Okay. So the issue is that we're nearing a tipping point, but we don't know which tipping point we're going to hit first. Yeah. The way I like to think of it is that

It's kind of like a phase transition. So think of a bowl and you put a marble in a bowl. And if you just give it a little bit of a nudge, it'll just move around in that bowl without a problem. And it stays within the bowl. Now, say you have two bowls next to each other and you kind of give it a really good kick. And the marble goes out one bowl and goes into the other. Okay. So how hard you have to roll that marble kind of tells you how hard it is to go from

one state to another. But when you start putting a lot of stress on the system, we could think of as one of those states as becoming more and more shallow. The bowl becomes more and more shallow. It becomes more like a plate, which means it takes less energy, less effort to move the marble from the plate into the bowl. And the whole point of the analogy is that what we're doing is we're constantly kind of changing the shape of the bowl by doing all of these interactions with the environment and that some of those allow for greater changes into a new situation. And that is what I'm referring to as a phase transition in this case, where we go from one state of the environment to a completely different state of the environment, just because we

have this complex system of multiple interacting kind of pillars. With space, I'll give you another example of kind of how things are related. We want to have really good space traffic management. We can't have just satellites without maneuvering capabilities in orbit just because we're putting so much stuff up there. So they have to be able to at least maneuver around the things we know about. There are a lot more things we don't know about, but at least around the things we do know about could create a catastrophic collision where the whole thing breaks apart, creates a lot more debris. We need to be able to move around those.

But there are certain type of systems that can't handle that well or have problems deorbiting after their, useful lifetime, or maybe there's a thruster failure and they still need to de-orbit. Well, one solution to that problem is to have drag sales. So imagine you have a fleet of CubeSats. Okay. And these are numbers of things that are proposed. So while I'm throwing some numbers out, it's not meant to reflect any particular system, but these are actual numbers that people are talking about. So you have something like 100,000 satellites, and you're replacing these 100,000 satellites on, you know, five-year timescales. And so you're just putting up satellites and having them come back down at a pretty steady rate over that period. Now, in order to facilitate the deorbiting with having very limited

fuel, one possibility is just to use Earth's atmosphere to help really bring the orbit down. Now, if it's a small satellite, that drag time scale may be long. But if you put a giant sail on it, You deploy it when you're ready to deorbit, you could really decrease the time scale for that to deorbit. But what that drag sale does is it takes a CubeSat area and it puts a big, big surface area into orbit for each one of those small satellites. And now that thing could be worse than any of the satellites that are currently up in orbit. And it's a small satellite to begin with, but it's the actual deorbiting. That's the problem. So with these connected issues.

No one goes to Hank's for his spreadsheets. They go for a darn good pizza. Lately, though, the shop's been quiet. So Hank decides to bring back the $1 slice. He asks Copilot in Microsoft Excel to look at his sales and costs. To help him see if he can afford it. Co-Pilot shows Hank where the money's going and which little extras make the dollar slice work.

Now, Hank has a line out the door. Hank makes the pizza. Co-Pilot handles the spreadsheets. Learn more at M365, copilot.com. flowing ad budget on metrics that look great till the CFO sees them. That's bullspend. And marketers are calling it out in. Dashboard, Confessions.

I remember telling my boss, it'll be good for the brand when leads were slow. Yeah, it wasn't. Cut the bullspend. LinkedIn lets you target by company, job title, and more. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com slash campaign, terms and conditions apply. This podcast is sponsored by Name, Audio and Focal.

With over 100 years of combined expertise, Name and Focal have been bringing music to listeners, just as the artist intended. Since day one, this mantra has shaped every innovation in high-fi design, technology and acoustic engineering, balancing craftsmanship and tradition with pioneering thinking. Name Audio pushes cutting-edge technology to ensure digital precision whilst sustaining technology.

Pratt, pace, rhythm and timing, the elusive quality that makes music feel alive and gives it emotional texture. Today, in partnership with French acoustic specialist focal, name audio creates systems that deliver exceptional sound, an unforgettable listening experiences at home. Try it for yourself at a focal powered by name boutique. Visit focal powered by name.com for more information. So it seems like, as you say, there's a few main issues connected with what we're putting up into space. One being the impact on dark and quiet skies for astronomical observations. Absolutely. Another being the potential for collisions up in space, sort of the extreme example being like the film Gravity with Sandra Bullock in.

Yeah, that's an extreme situation of it. It wouldn't happen that fast. I do need to stress that. But it gives the idea of the cascade. another being pollution of the earth's upper atmosphere and the final one being potential collisions, potential fatal collisions with the ground. That's right. That's a lot of problems. Where do we go about beginning to solve all of this? You know, what can be done and what is being done? So there are a number of things that can be done. From the science side, we can better understand

rates and numbers. So that's, you know, the question that you've been asking me about limits and so forth, what are limits. And while we don't have a firm answer for that, we can actually put bounds on it. And that's what we're trying to do. So at least conditional bounds. And so an example of a rate would be comparing the re-entry mass to the mass flux, the rate at which mass enters the atmosphere to kind of how it actually forces the environment. And a very simple comparison is, say, comparing the environmental rate with the human rate. And so the environmental rate when we're talking about re-entries is for meteoroids. So there's a very natural process in which Earth is still a creating material from the solar system. And we see a lot of those as meteors in the sky. And so there is

an ablation of rocky material. But meteoroids have a very particular composition of material. There's certainly variation, but it's fairly well known what the variety is and what the most consistent form is. And it's largely rock, and rock is largely oxygen, you know, connected with some silicon, maybe some iron and magnesium and so forth. But it's very, very little aluminum. There are certainly aluminum minerals, but the meteorids are only about 1% or less aluminum. And you compare that with what's coming in with satellites. And when you do that, we're already now exceeding what happens naturally from meteoroids in terms of the amount of aluminum that we're putting into the atmosphere. And there are other materials too. And that goes

into a different conversation, but still on environment, about how that affects then the stratosphere through alumina formation, settling into the stratosphere and interacting with the ozone layer, as well as affecting global climate balance. Kind of the first rate of comparison is, when has humanity exceeded the natural rate of the environment? And we're already there. So then the second question is, when does it really start to matter compared with many of our other other activities? So when does this form of ozone depletion? When does this form of climate forcing become comparable to many of the other forms that we have? And so that is not something that is yet well understood. And we need to have a lot more measurements of that. But that comes into the

rate issue. Another thing, though, setting aside kind of numbers and rates is just cooperation. And this is cooperation between institutions within a single government. And it is also cooperation internationally. And that cooperation is one thing that we need to foster more and more of, particularly as we have many different types of operators in space. We have this major commercialization. of space, and states are obligated to authorize and supervise all of the operators that's under their jurisdiction. But there needs to be a balance between things such as proprietary information for businesses with understanding that they're operating in this environment that's beyond national jurisdiction that many would call a commons and that it's a shared resource, and it's a resource that is

ultimately finite. You put a satellite into orbit that limits the ability of somebody else to put a satellite into orbit, just because you have to now start thinking about when are the probabilities of collisions too high, when do you have to maneuver so that immediately you start to have cooperation and there's resource consumption. So that coordination is a major aspect of it as well. And how is that coordination going? Because you've raised an important point there, which is that It seems like this isn't going to work if it's a patchwork of legislations from different space agencies and governments around the world. It really needs everyone working together. So where are we up to on that? There is some positive progress with it. It is slowly moving, but it is, I think,

in the right direction. So they're the long-term sustainability guidelines on the international level. And these are a set of guidelines that were negotiated and put forward, and actually before the launch of the mega constellations. So they actually already need to be revised, but they took the important step of recognizing outer space as a resource and an environment that's worth protecting. Now, the principles in there are very general, and that's done on purpose so that states could then come with their kind of own solutions for it. And this is building on things such as the interagency debris coordination committee, which is then a group of space agencies that are all concerned about orbital debris come together to do calculations and make recommendations to governments on what their debris guidelines should be. So we see these various elements and there is this international cooperation already. It's just it's not sufficient yet to really take care of situations where now companies and companies, governments want to blanket orbital regions, orbital shells, so kind of regions of 10, 20

kilometers thick, just full of thousands of satellites. And that is just a very different situation from what we've had. Outer space law, the international law is applied to space, prohibits the appropriation of parts of outer space or celestial bodies. And that appropriation cannot be done through claims of sovereignty, certainly, but also through occupation, use, or any other means. And so if you now put something into or put a satellite system into an orbital shell that now prohibits anyone else from using that, there is an open question of whether you have now contravened one of the fundamental tenets of space law. And so that's something that can only be negotiated really at the international level through mechanisms such

as the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful uses of outer space. And there is discussion there. There's also discussion on dark and quiet skies, and that language is actually now being incorporated internationally, which is a really positive thing. So who is it that's leading the charge on this at the moment? Is it sort of voluntary private sector company? or is it public sector legislation that's taking the reins? Well, it depends on which aspect of the problem. So for debris, a lot of the agencies have been doing a really good job at discussing the issues associated with it and how to move forward. There's been a lack, though, of kind of what it all means when you start putting into many different types of actors,

not just government actors, into the mix. there have been a lot of very good national movement in some very specific cases. And so, for example, there's the Earth Space Sustainability Initiative in the UK, which is put together this broad spectrum of sustainability issues with addressing the Earth space system. And things like dark and quiet skies, atmospheric pollution, casualty risks, and orbital debris are all in there. So while the licensing, and the regulations are not yet kind of updated to reflect what we're seeing. There is that movement to get there.

In the United States, the Office of Space Commerce has recently started releasing this broad space sustainability picture, which also includes things like dark and quiet skies, atmosphere pollution, casually risks, all those notes. And so this very large players are now kind of recognizing. recognizing that this problem exists, whether that moves to licensing and regulation, you know, we're still dragging our feet with that, but it's just hard. So you briefly mentioned it before, and I think really we can't ignore the elephant in the room, which is these sort of mega constellations, these mega satellite constellations that are going

up into the atmosphere from companies like Starlink or a bunch of other companies. Some people think that they're necessary in order to connect the world and give everyone internet access. Do you think that they're compatible with using space sustainably? Well, I don't think they're compatible with the way they're being proposed at the moment. I think there's a real conflict. And to be very clear, there is a real value in having large constellations in space that enable communications for everyone. Some of the things that are on set is like, who is everyone?

Are these really serving everyone? we see very specific cases of that, which highlight the potential for that to be true. But what are the actual use cases? And do we actually need the number of satellites that are being proposed? I think that's a very reasonable question that needs to be asked. When a company comes out and says, I want 40,000 satellites in orbit in order to meet my business model, I think it's really important for people to governments, other industry, companies, and just people to be able to say, wait a second, do you need 40,

40,000 satellites in order to do this. And of course, this is where there then immediately becomes a conflict because the company would say, well, that's our business plan and we're not sharing our business plan with you. That's proprietary information and so forth, right? There's a difficult balance that needs to be reached. There is huge value in just asking, why do you need 40,000 satellites? Who are you actually trying to reach with this? And why can't you do that with a thousand satellites? And I think those are the questions that we need to be asking. people need services, because they don't need satellites. They need services, and satellites is just one way to provide services.

And so when you have a mixed model of having both terrestrial and space augmented services, then we could actually have a very wide reach, and we could do the great things that we're talking about, enabled greatly by the use of space. But if we start trying to put everything into space, just because we can, that just exacerbates the environmental issue. It seems like there is at least some potential for frameworks and agreements, albeit fairly complex ones, that could help us set out a path for using orbital space sustainably. But do you think that we have enough time to pull them together and implement them?

Or is it time to slow down? Well, I think there would be, I actually think it would be wonderful if we slowed down just a bit here to really understand what we're doing. doing to the environment. And we get a better handle on what the boundaries are of the safe operating space that we have, and in a very broad sense, not just from the orbital debris. I mentioned earlier that, you know, we have this view that we can do what we want and just tuck our way out of it. We've seen that time and time again. And it's coupled with the view that the environment is always too big for it to matter. So we saw that. with our emissions in the atmosphere with climate change. We saw that with plastics in the ocean,

and we could go with many other examples. But the fact of the matter is even the orbital space around Earth is not so big that humans can't affect it. We are greatly affecting it, and we're affecting the Earth space system. And so some of the challenges that we have are understanding that solutions require both technical and social tools, that we need to have innovation and governance, as well as the technology, to better enable the safe and sustainable use and exploration of outer space.

Things like automatic collision avoidance are great in principle. But if that automatic collision avoidance, so I'm referring to satellites, tracking each other and knowing where they are and then maneuvering without human intervention in order to improve space safety. If that could be gotten to work properly, and there are early steps with companies such as SpaceX who are doing that in part, if they're able to really get that to work, that's great. But if by getting that to work, it means that they are now motivated to put even more satellites

into that operating space, then you take away from the advantage that you already had. And this is a very common environmental paradox. Are you hopeful that we'll achieve all of this that you're setting out? I think we have the potential of achieving it. Whether we will or not, we'll see. But outer space has so far been an interesting outlier in a lot of human activities in terms of cooperation. and that's just because of the extreme environment. We can point to many bad things that have happened, such as anti-satellite weapon tests,

very early on nuclear explosions in space. But then we could also point to the reactions of that. So the detonation of nuclear weapons in outer space very quickly led to the limited test ban treaty, which now prohibits the detonation of nuclear weapons in space for the signatories of that, as well as leading to one of the major articles in the Outer Space Treaty itself, which prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons in outer space and certain of their detonation.

Anti-satellite weapon tests have led to calls by individual nations not to conduct these any further because of the damage that they cause. And even with the tensions that we now have happening with the war in Ukraine, among many other issues, there are still cosmonauts and astronauts who are working and living together in the International Space Station and even more so going up and coming down

on rockets and capsules together. So it's not just living in this abstract thing, orbiting, well, a very physical thing, orbiting the Earth, but they're actually going to the other state, getting in a rocket together, and going up to the space station. And so we have other examples of that. And so it's the difficulty of operating in space and the shared risk of operating in space

that does provide a lot of motivation for humanity to come together. And it's my hope that that continues. There's no guarantee, but space provides the conditions for this to happen. So that was Aaron Bowley, an associate professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of British Columbia. To discover more about the topics we've discussed today, check out his book. which he co-authored with Michael Byers titled Who Owns Space, International Law, Astrophysics, and the Sustainable Development of Space? Thanks for listening to this episode of Instant Genius, brought to you by the team behind BBC Science Focus magazine,

which you can find on sale now in supermarkets and newsagents up and down the country. If you've enjoyed this episode, make sure to subscribe via your preferred app, and leave us a review. You can, of course, also find us as well as to subscribe. online at sciencefocus.com. This podcast is sponsored by Name, Audio and Focal. The texture and emotional depth of music can be lost through digital sources or poor signal. Name Audio believes you can have digital precision with analog warmth. Alongside French acoustic specialist focal,

name creates high-end audio systems, combining innovation with craftsmanship, so you can listen to music, just as the artist in touch. intended. Discover more at name audio.com.