Space Photovoltaic Reality and Virtual Investigation: The Billion-Dollar Boom of Concept Frenzy and Industry Truth

Byline Reporter Yin Jingfei

The space solar power sector is red-hot, which has prompted onshore solar companies that are “stuck in excess capacity and net losses” to rush to “go to space” and tell their stories. After conducting an in-depth investigation, Securities Times reporters found that most “space solar” efforts mostly remain in PPT slides and lab experiments; popular routes such as HJT (heterojunction solar cells) and perovskite are “feasible in principle, but useless once they go to space”; PERC (passivated emitter and rear cell technology) is regarded by experts as an underappreciated mature solution. With missing validation and an industrial ecosystem far from mature, this frenzied hype of a “stars and sea” level may just be a celebration of concepts.

Recently, the regulatory authorities have launched a series of heavy moves against listed companies that are蹭热点 (piggybacking on hot topics). Industry experts have called for: returning to the engineering essence and industrial rules, so that this technology can truly reach the “vast universe.”

**　　Concept hype: draws heavy regulatory action**

Mature technologies such as reusable rockets have pushed global launches into a large-scale era. Coupled with Musk’s space computing power vision, it has fueled imagination of a trillion-yuan-scale market for space solar power. Entering April, with favorable catalysts such as SpaceX convening an IPO syndicate kickoff meeting on April 6, the space solar power concept has become active again in the short term.

Since this year began, in China’s A-share market, multiple listed companies have been punished for “SpaceX, commercial aerospace, and other concept” hype. Solar companies including Shuangliang Energy Saving and Trina Solar were punished by the Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau and received a regulatory warning from the Shanghai Stock Exchange, respectively, for publishing vague information about cooperating with SpaceX. In addition, Guoke Military Industry, Hangxiao Steel Structure, Wog Optical Electronics, and EDR Digital and others were also given regulatory warnings for publishing inaccurate or incomplete information related to commercial aerospace.

Securities Times reporters found that most listed companies that hype these concepts share the following characteristics: either they exaggerate the association of their business cooperation with aerospace companies such as SpaceX; or they vaguely outline aerospace technology plans; or they use hot-topic labels, misleading the market into believing they are core participants in the space solar power field.

Qi Haishen, CEO of Jinzhen Co., Ltd., told Securities Times reporters that in the space solar power heat, some companies have followed the trend and need to rationally distinguish between a company’s core business and the degree of relevance to hot topics. Some companies may have related product layouts, but the scale and the share of core business differ, so they cannot exaggerate their claims due to the heat of the concept. Space solar power is a new application scenario with considerable potential, but market rollout needs to proceed step by step; it should not chase explosive growth.

From the industrial side, both industry and investment need to take space solar power rationally; it should not rush for quick results or expect a short-term boom. Development must proceed step by step and follow industrial规律 (rules). The market release of space solar power is far more stringent than that of consumer use. Although space resources are limited and companies are urgently competing for capacity, if the technology is not up to standard, advancing prematurely is unacceptable, in order to avoid wasting resources and creating chaos in the industry.

Liang Shuang (a pseudonym), director of a solar engineering technology research center in South China, has been engaged in space solar power research for more than 20 years. He told Securities Times reporters that in today’s space solar power sector, information is “interwoven with accurate, half-accurate, and content that defies common sense and is based on hearsay.” Although leading onshore solar companies frequently exchange and discuss, they still cannot reach a clear consensus. Musk’s vision for space solar power and space computing power “is rich in imagination but very far from engineering reality,” and experts in the U.S. aerospace field have already publicly challenged it.

The regulatory authorities have tightened supervision of hype behavior. Related core solar listed companies told Securities Times reporters that nowadays, within the industry, people are tight-lipped about terms related to space solar power such as perovskite.

**　　The technical truth:**Onshore solar cannot directly go to space

As a “fueling station” for satellites, space solar power mainly has three technology routes: gallium arsenide batteries, HJT batteries, and perovskite batteries. Gallium arsenide batteries are mainstream but costly; HJT and perovskite batteries, due to technological immaturity, have not yet been truly used.

While solar companies are “competing to death” on the ground, who will get the ticket to the future of space solar power?

Most solar companies either remain in the lab, fixated on photoelectric conversion efficiency, while some companies send solar cells to space for testing; still others enter this track through mergers and acquisitions.

Regarding this, GCL Technology told Securities Times reporters that the company completed the world’s first space deployment test of perovskite modules in 2023 and plans to conduct sample testing and near-space verification in 2026 together with Institute 811 of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation. LONGi Green Energy’s HPBC batteries have been deployed twice on the Shenzhou spacecraft to complete space testing and have launched flexible stacked batteries with an efficiency of 33.4%. JinkoSolar said its perovskite tandem cell lab efficiency reached 34.76%, and it has also jointly built an AI experimental line with JingTai Technology to accelerate R&D. In addition, Günda Co., Ltd. (Junda shares) entered the field of satellite batteries and full satellite R&D through acquisitions and collaborations.

Lü Jinbiao, a consulting expert for the China Photovoltaic Industry Association, told reporters that the perovskite photoelectric conversion efficiencies claimed in the lab are often achievements based on small areas and ideal conditions. Whether they can be repeated, whether they can pass small-scale trials and pilot tests, and whether they can be industrialized still have a long road ahead.

Liang Shuang said bluntly that the R&D and testing logic for space solar power needs to be adjusted urgently. Onshore solar focuses more on cost and energy generation volume. Currently, solar companies emphasize photoelectric conversion efficiency, but satellites cannot be repaired or replaced; once a battery fails, the satellite is scrapped. Reliability is the first metric, and efficiency is only a secondary reference point—so the design logic is completely different.

Apart from hype, can the HJT and perovskite routes actually work?

In Liang Shuang’s view, the principle of HJT is feasible, but its space cost-performance ratio is extremely low.

This space solar power expert stated that HJT is not absolutely unusable in space, but it requires a comprehensive redesign of electrode materials, manufacturing processes, and encapsulation technologies for the space environment. After the redesign, problems such as efficiency drop and cost increase will appear. Onshore HJT electrodes cannot withstand the extreme temperature variations and irradiation in space; unmodified products fail quickly in orbit. After modification, they can meet short-term use (such as 6 months), but long-term (more than 5 years) reliability and stability are insufficient. Overall, the cost-performance ratio is far worse than the older PERC path for solar cells. Industry research paths are largely similar: they all revolve around optimizing environmental adaptation and are unlikely to deliver a disruptive, original breakthrough.

Liang Shuang revealed that some companies have taken onshore HJT batteries directly to the sky, and they failed within days to months, but the relevant parties did not publicly disclose the failure results.

However, Qi Haishen said this kind of situation is probabilistic. Space environments are complex, and running satellites in orbit inherently carries various possible failures. One cannot deny HJT’s potential for space suitability merely because some tests show problems.

As for perovskite batteries, their underlying principle is compatible with space, but the route must be completely rebuilt.

Liang Shuang told Securities Times reporters: “From a scientific principle standpoint, perovskite batteries are more suitable for satellite applications than silicon cells. Also, satellites have far higher tolerance for battery costs than the ground does. But their current technological route does not work. The core strength lies in weak-light response and avoiding water and oxygen degradation in vacuum environments; theoretically, the performance is better than silicon. In the long run, it may replace gallium arsenide batteries. However, the fatal shortcomings are equally clear: on the ground, perovskites cannot pass space high-low temperature cycling, strong ultraviolet, and irradiation tests. Organic components readily decompose and sublimate; storing at high temperatures for just a few hours can already cause failure.”

He pointed out that in terms of development route, it is necessary to abandon the idea of “replacing onshore crystalline silicon,” and shift to R&D of space-dedicated technologies to tackle stability and anti-irradiation challenges. Within about five years, a viable route may emerge.

PERC batteries are a space mainstream technology path that the industry has underestimated, and they may even see a “second renaissance.”

Liang Shuang explained that as the most mature solar technology path, the market generally regards PERC as behind-grade capacity. But in space, it is a mature solution validated through long-term testing. “Before 2010, most satellites used single-crystal silicon/PERC cells. Their technological maturity and reliability have been verified through dozens of years of in-orbit inspections, and satellite service life can easily meet the 10–20 year requirement.” He predicted that onshore solar may gradually return to PERC as HJT power-station degradation issues are addressed. Existing TopCon production lines can be compatible with PERC production. The industry does not need to completely eliminate capacity; it only needs to restart and optimize the technology.

**　　Industrial reality:****“a dilemma of validation” and “a difficulty with ecosystems”**

Amid the clamor of capital markets, space solar power is facing a severe exam from “concept” to “engineering.” Despite broad prospects, the industry still faces real dilemmas such as the lack of a validation system, misalignment of technology routes, and cost hurdles.

The first and foremost is the validation dilemma. A relevant party from Mawaier (迈为股份) told Securities Times reporters candidly that whether it is HJT or perovskite, in theory it may be feasible, but the industry widely lacks on-orbit empirical data.

The absence of such data stems from various chaos and shortcomings in the validation process. Li Ran (a pseudonym), a person involved in solar array wing R&D at a certain aerospace institute, told Securities Times reporters that they have been receiving a large number of requests from onshore solar companies for in-space verification, but the two sides often are “not on the same channel.” For example, many companies directly use N-type cells for testing, not realizing that P-type cells are actually more suitable for the space environment. Worse still, some companies treat as “not even started” the validation and improvements that should be done at the ground stage.

More than that, some so-called “validation” is merely formal. Li Ran revealed that some solar companies send batteries to the sky, but they do not generate power. Liang Shuang pointed out that when solar companies send samples to institutions such as aerospace institutes, this is only the starting point for verification. It must go through a long process including ground testing, in-orbit deployment, and telemetry data collection. Commercialization can only be achieved in the short term in 2–3 years and in the long term in 5–8 years. It also requires system-level argumentation within the satellite system; it is not as simple as passing inspection after sending items.

The root cause of this dilemma lies in misconceptions about “the difference between heaven and earth.” Liang Shuang emphasized that onshore solar products cannot be used directly in space 100%, because there are fundamental differences between the two. First is extreme thermal cycling: space must endure temperature variations of ±80℃ to ±120℃. In low-orbit satellites, the day-night cycle can be as many as 15 times, while on the ground, only a range of +80℃ to -20℃ can be achieved, with a daily cycle of less than 1 time. Second is a strong radiation environment: ultraviolet in space and irradiation by high-energy particles are extremely destructive to materials, and the ground has no corresponding simulation conditions. Third is a process barrier: the failure rate of ground welding and encapsulation technologies after going to space is very high, and satellite-dedicated processes must be used.

Lü Jinbiao told Securities Times reporters that the development of space solar power should not only focus on the battery technology itself, but should consider the entire industrial chain and business ecosystem. The real prerequisite for space solar power to be feasible is that the overall market demand must be there—for example, thousands or tens of thousands of satellites need electricity, and those satellites must have clear commercial service customers and business models.

Evidently, bottlenecks in launch capability and the “uncertainty” of space computing power constrain the large-scale adoption of space solar power. Liang Shuang said that based on current launch capacity, Musk’s vision of one million satellites would take a century to complete. Meanwhile, the cost of devices such as space GPUs and memory is extremely high, and they are prone to failure in orbit; market-based rollout is still far off. At the same time, cost is also a major “roadblock” to the commercialization of space solar power. Liang Shuang calculated: even if SpaceX reduces launch costs to $2,000 per kilogram, sending a GW-level system into orbit would still require hundreds of billions of dollars.

Market doubts also apply to industrial chain compatibility. From the upstream materials perspective, there is insufficient production capacity of ultra-light, radiation-resistant, and high-temperature-tolerant materials suitable for space environments. From the midstream manufacturing perspective, the customized production capacity of aerospace-grade solar panels is scarce; most companies still focus on small-batch production in the lab. From the downstream operations and maintenance perspective, in-orbit robots and space repair equipment are almost blank. In response, Lü Jinbiao said that aerospace-grade high-temperature-tolerant materials and customized component capacity would be driven by market competition once commercial demand becomes clear, rather than building the industrial chain first and waiting for demand afterward.

In the face of the hype wave, rationality is needed: rebuild technical priorities and industrial pacing.

Liang Shuang said: “First, the technical priority needs to be rebuilt: space solar power should abandon ‘lab efficiency worship.’ With pragmatism as the core, it should prioritize solving reliability, environmental adaptation, and in-orbit life issues; efficiency is only an auxiliary metric. Second, routes should be differentiated: HJT should focus on ground scenarios, PERC should stick to its mainstream position in space, and perovskite should shift to space-dedicated R&D—each to its own role, avoiding blind competition across scenarios. Third, industrial pacing should slow down: solar companies should plan rationally, treating space solar power as a long-term technology reserve of more than 10 years, rather than a short-term performance growth point.”

He concluded by emphasizing: “In the hype wave of space solar power, only by returning to the engineering essence and industrial rules, and by discarding financialization hype and one-sided public opinion guidance, can this technology truly move toward practical use instead of remaining trapped in science fiction and capital stories.”

（Source: Securities Times）