Key events in space-tech, Earth Observation and climate are listed in Space4Climate’s 2026 calendar.
It is regularly updated and you can submit your own listings too. Events are also shared each week with Space4Climate’s wide membership covering industry, policy and science. So whether you want to plan your diary, check any clashes with events you are planning or promote your own event, visit Space4Climate 2026 Events Calendar.
By Julie Canet, Senior Associate, Marks & Clerk
Trade marks are a form of intellectual property (IP) which provide legal protection for different elements of your branding. A trade mark registration confers an exclusive right to prevent others from using an identical or confusingly similar mark in respect of the same or similar goods and services. Like patents, they accumulate financial value, encourage investment, and can be sold, licensed, etc.
Trade marks should be considered at an early stage of your business venture – and certainly before you launch! Here I provide a checklist of essential trade mark considerations.
To be registrable, your mark must be capable of distinguishing goods or services as originating from you. This means it cannot generally be descriptive, customary, laudatory, etc. Any brand which contains descriptive words such as SPACE, ORBIT, SATELLITE, SKY, COMMUNICATIONS, etc. will need to be combined with another distinctive word or logo, to be registrable.
Distinctiveness is a spectrum: the most distinctive marks are completely invented words or words which have absolutely no meaning in relation to the space sector – the least distinctive marks are allusive terms which can be difficult to protect and enforce. The more unique the mark, the broader the scope of enforceability conferred by registration.
What is at the core of your business? What goods are you selling? What services are you providing? What will your consumers be paying for?
Goods and services are categorised into different “Classes”, and a list needs carefully drafted before you file a trade mark application. It is crucial to cover the full range intended to be offered under the mark as it is not possible to expand the scope of an application once filed.
Trade marks are territorial in scope, thus protection conferred by registration is limited to the territory in which the mark is registered. Owning a UK trade mark does not give you blanket worldwide protection.
While your products may be deployed and used in space, there are always connections to a specific territory on Earth. In particular, a space-based invention will be manufactured somewhere on earth, may cross national borders (import/export), be sold, be kept, and importantly, be advertised.
Where are your consumers located? Where are you based or likely to be based in the foreseeable future? Where are your competitors? Do you have distributors or partners?
The countries where those actions will take place are where you need to obtain trade mark protection.
Trade Mark registers can be visualised as constellations of an infinite number of marks. To avoid or reduce the risk of collision, it is good practice to conduct searches prior to using or registering a mark, to ensure that it is free to use and register. Conducting searches is likely to be cheaper and less disruptive than having to rebrand later down the line.
Obtaining a trade mark registration is the best form of legal protection for your brand. While unregistered rights are recognised in some territories, they can be complex, expensive to enforce, and do not arise immediately. When starting your business, it is preferable to secure registered trade mark protection.
It is tempting to put off or defer decisions relating to IP as it can appear as a complex area of law, but it is important to take certain steps sooner rather than later. Early planning will allow you to get a handle on your budget, timescales, and to make sure your trade mark is free to use, registrable and enforceable.
Author:
Julie Canet | Senior Associate
Registered and Chartered Trade Mark Attorney
jcanet@marks-clerk.com
About Marks & Clerk
Marks & Clerk LLP are a firm of specialist IP attorneys with a passion for space technology. If you need help regarding any of the above, please get in contact and we will be able to book you in for a free consultation with one of our attorneys.
A significant number of space systems fail not because they were badly designed, but because qualification is mistaken for readiness. Some of the most well-known mission failures did not occur because a spacecraft failed qualification; they occurred after success had already been declared.
What failed in these cases was not the idea of qualification, but the assumption that qualification evidence alone is sufficient to guarantee safe and predictable operation in orbit.
The Mars Climate Orbiter Hitomi Satellite NOAA-19
What “Operations” Really Means for a Satellite
Operations in space do not resemble a laboratory environment or a short demonstration phase. A satellite in orbit must operate continuously without physical access, under strict power and thermal constraints, exposed to radiation, commanded through limited telemetry, and increasingly governed by autonomous software behaviour. In that environment, a satellite is no longer just a designed system; it is a system operating permanently at the edge of its assumptions.
Why Qualification Is Structurally Insufficient
Qualification demonstrates that a design can survive defined environments and perform specified functions. It does not prove that the system will behave predictably over time, under evolving operational conditions, or in response to combinations of events that were never exercised together on the ground.
Ground testing is necessarily constrained. Time is compressed, configurations are controlled, and systems are heavily instrumented and monitored in ways that cannot be replicated once in orbit. Decisions are made by the engineers who designed the system. While qualification does include representative operational scenarios, these are exercised in isolation and under tightly controlled conditions that cannot fully replicate sustained in-orbit use.
Qualification validates design intent. Operations expose design truth.
Why Failures Cluster After Launch
Many post-launch failures are not sudden. They emerge as assumptions are gradually invalidated: margins consumed by real usage, thermal or power behaviour drifting from predictions, software states accumulating history that was never exercised on the ground, or recovery paths depending on human decisions made with incomplete data. In practice, this often manifests through mechanisms such as estimator bias accumulation, long-duration thermal soak effects, or battery impedance growth, effects that are benign over short tests but become critical over sustained operation.
In orbit, time itself becomes a failure mechanism. Effects that were acceptable over hours or days during test become significant over months or years. Modes that were technically verified but rarely exercised become the default response to unexpected conditions. What looked robust in isolation becomes fragile in sequence.
The Missing Question: Are We Ready to Operate This Satellite?
Most satellite programmes can demonstrate that requirements have been met and qualification objectives achieved. Far fewer can show that operational risks are understood, bounded, and actively mitigated. Operational readiness is not the absence of open actions at launch; it is the result of explicit verification that failure modes, degradations, and recovery paths are detectable and manageable within real operational constraints.
Techniques such as Failure Modes and Effects Analysis, fault-tree analysis, and operational hazard analysis are often performed during design, but are rarely revisited once the system configuration, software behaviour, and operational concept have stabilised. As a result, many risks are formally analysed but never operationally exercised. In practice, these risks are not eliminated; they are transferred, implicitly, to operations.
Confidence Is a Lifecycle Property
Space does not forgive hidden assumptions. Once a satellite is in orbit, every ambiguity is amplified by distance, delay, and autonomy. Many mission losses have not been the result of poor engineering discipline, but of misplaced confidence at the point of release. Success in space is not what passes qualification; it is what continues to behave predictably when no one can touch it.
Mary Mousavi Moayed
Have you ever wondered how customer testimonials and case studies add value to your business? Well, let us tell you.
Sharing testimonials and reviews about your company with your audience can increase engagement and attract new customers.
9 out of 10 people trust what a customer says about a business more than what that business says about itself. Customers are also likely to spend 31% more with companies with good customer reviews. Hence, sharing positive feedback and customer stories is a very effective way to grow your audience and attract new customers.
And combining customer feedback with the power of video can be a recipe for great success. Did you know that customers remember 95% of a video review compared to only 10% of a written one?
According to the latest research on all things video marketing by Wyzowl, 84% of video marketers say video has directly increased sales, whilst 87% of customers say they have been convinced to buy a product or service by watching a video… Which makes video testimonials the perfect all-around business solution to grab customers’ attention and boost sales in an effective, engaging format.
They say a picture says a thousand words… we say a video says way, way more
Check out our work with Prior Scientific HERE and see for yourself.
If you’d like our help creating video testimonials, get in touch: hello@oskecreative.co.uk
Ethernet is increasingly being used in the aerospace and satcom markets due to its high scalability, redundancy, lower cost, and open standards based technology. Additionally, recent enhancements from a set of IEEE standards called Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) or with Time-Triggered Ethernet (TTE) from SAE AS6802, further enable Ethernet to be used in time-critical applications where low-latency, security and safety are paramount. (And Ethernet is also being successfully leveraged in commercial aviation to enable new higher-bandwidth hungry infotainment services.)
Aukua Systems recently launched the MGA8410, their next-generation Ethernet & IP test platform designed to accelerate and simplify complex Non-Terrestrial Network validation testing.
The MGA8410’s advanced FPGA-based architecture delivers the nanosecond precision, performance and repeatability required for testing Non-Terrestrial Networks, including support for Free Space Optics for line-of-sight comms.
At the core of the MGA8410 is Aukua’s unique 3-in-1 capability, integrating a Traffic Generator/Analyzer, Network Impairment Emulator, and Inline Packet Capture and Analyzer in one compact device. This consolidated approach eliminates the need for multiple tools, reduces setup complexity, expands use-case coverage, and significantly lowers overall test costs.
Test the following real-world conditions such as:
Benefits:
The MGA8410 also introduces a breakthrough feature: the ability to simultaneously perform traffic generation and inline packet capture or network impairment emulation. This means engineers can use the Traffic Generator/Analyzer to test devices under specific conditions, such as jamming, throughput validation, and latency or jitter measurement while simultaneously capturing and analysing live data streams without interruption.
The MGA8410’s metrics can be run over ANY satellite modem with an Ethernet port supporting C-Band, Ka-Band, Ku-Band, X-Band etc.
In summary, by delivering precise, repeatable, real-world testing in a single, integrated solution, the MGA8410 helps teams accelerate development cycles, improve product quality, and build more resilient Satellite Communications Networks.
For Further Information
Tel: 01628 559980
Aukua NTN Introduction Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhqSHzfc4B0
We are used to the idea that a picture can convey more than words alone. But when the subject is complex, dynamic, and full of trade-offs, even pictures begin to fall short. Understanding often comes not from looking, but from doing.
Space exploration is one of the most complex endeavours humanity has ever engaged in – whether it is landing a car-sized rover on Mars or channelling satellite data to support Norfolk’s agriculture. It involves tightly coupled technical systems, long feedback loops, uncertainty, and decisions where small misunderstandings can have catastrophic consequences. Yet much of how we communicate about space -whether internally, publicly, or to stakeholders- still relies on largely outdated formats: reports, slides, diagrams, and videos. In my experience, those linear communication channels often struggle to keep up.
The history of space exploration offers many lessons about how hard it is to communicate, let alone manage complex systems. The loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter (caused by a unit conversion mismatch), or the crisis aboard Apollo 13, are often discussed in technical terms. However, they also point to something broader: understanding complex systems is not just an engineering challenge, but a human one.
This is where interactive communication goes from helpful to necessary. Interactivity is not about making things more entertaining. It is about allowing people to explore cause and effect, to test assumptions, and to experience trade-offs directly rather than being told about them. When people interact with a system, even a simplified one, they begin to build intuition: what changes quickly or slowly, what is fragile and what is robust. I’ve often seen that people understand constraints far more quickly when they encounter them through experience rather than just information.
Mission planning, systems engineering and operations all involve navigating uncertainty, feedback loops and constraints. Interactive communication does not remove complexity – but it can make it more legible. It allows people to see how outcomes emerge from decisions, rather than encountering results as static facts.
Interestingly, another field has spent decades refining ways of communicating complex systems: video games. Setting aside entertainment, games are sophisticated learning environments. They routinely teach players intricate rule-based systems without manuals, allowing understanding to emerge through participation. A well-known example is Kerbal Space Program, which helped a wide audience develop an intuitive grasp of orbital mechanics not through lectures, but through experimentation. The value here is not that it is a game about space, but that it demonstrates how complex subjects can be learned experientially.
The relevance of this approach is broad. In training and professional development, interactive systems can help teams explore scenarios, dependencies and risks in ways that static materials struggle to convey. In outreach and education, they offer ways for non-experts to meaningfully engage with space-related challenges rather than passively consuming information. For policymakers, investors and stakeholders, interactive models can make trade-offs and constraints visible, supporting more informed discussion.
My interest in this comes from a background designing educational games and training simulations. Across very different contexts and fields I have repeatedly seen that people grasp complexity more readily when they are allowed to act within a system, rather than being asked to understand it from the outside. The same patterns appear again and again: explanation informs, but participation is usually what turns information into understanding.
None of this suggests a single solution, or that interactive approaches should replace existing forms of communication. But it does mean that communication itself deserves to be treated as a design challenge, particularly in a sector where complexity is unavoidable. Interactive and immersive methods are already appearing in pockets across the space ecosystem. The opportunity lies in sharing lessons, experimenting thoughtfully, and learning from fields that have been grappling with similar problems for a long time.
As space continues to touch more industries and communities – from precision farming in the East of England’s agri-tech sector to the complex systems of offshore wind and maritime monitoring- the question may not be whether people are interested in space, but whether we are giving them tools that help them truly understand it.
What interactive tools will your team and investors leverage to master the complexity of our next-generation space opportunities?
Thanks for Reading.
Imre Jele – Atypical Types
Innovate UK is inviting UK-based Agri-Tech businesses to take part in its Global Incubator Programme (GIP), offering a unique opportunity to scale internationally through collaboration with leading Canadian incubators. This initiative focuses on accelerating innovation in agriculture by connecting UK companies with Saskatchewan’s dynamic Agri-Tech ecosystem – home to over 40% of Canada’s cultivated farmland.
What’s on offer?
Successful applicants will join a 9 – 12 month structured programme that includes:
The programme is fully funded for one representative per company, covering flights, accommodation, and in-market travel. A refundable commitment fee of £2,000 applies upon acceptance.
Why Canada?
Saskatchewan province in western Canada provides an ideal testing ground for Agri-Tech solutions, offering real-world environments and strong industry networks. Previous cohorts have collectively generated over £118M in revenue and raised £161M in private capital, demonstrating the programme’s impact.
Who should apply?
Innovative UK SMEs with proven traction in Agri-Tech areas such as:
Applications close 11 January 2026.
To find out more and visit UKRI’s website – CLICK HERE