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

Data Compilation: Yin Jingfei Image Source: AI-generated

Staff Reporter Yin Jingfei

The space photovoltaic industry is red-hot, prompting ground-based solar companies that have “fallen into excess capacity and performance losses” to scramble to “go to space” and tell their stories. After an in-depth investigation, Securities Times reporter found that most “space photovoltaics” remain confined to PPT slides and laboratory experiments; popular routes such as HJT (heterojunction solar cells) and perovskite are “feasible in principle, but once you take them to space, they fail”; and PERC (passivated emitter and rear cell technology) is regarded by experts as an underestimated but mature solution. With validation missing and the industrial ecosystem far from mature, this frenzy of “stars and the sea of galaxies” may simply be a celebration of buzzwords.

Recently, regulators have launched a series of strong measures against listed companies that have been hopping on hot topics. Industry experts call for a return to engineering fundamentals and industrial rules, so that this technology can truly move toward the “vast universe.”

Concept Hype: Regulators Strike Back With Heavy Blows

Technologies such as reusable rockets, which have matured and driven the world’s launches into a scaled era, combined with Musk’s space computing concept, have fueled imaginations of a trillion-dollar market for space photovoltaics. Entering April, with positive catalysts such as SpaceX holding an IPO syndicate kickoff meeting on April 6, the space photovoltaics concept has become active again in the short term.

Since this year began, multiple listed companies in China’s A-share market have been penalized for “SpaceX, commercial aerospace, and other concept” hype. Solar firms such as Liang Chuang Energy Conservation and Trina Solar were punished by the Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau and the Shanghai Stock Exchange, respectively, because they released vague information about cooperation with SpaceX, which constituted hype around jumping on hot topics. In addition, Guoke Military Industry, Hangxiao Steel Structure, Woge Photoelectric, and ECR Digital were issued regulatory warning notices because their releases of information related to commercial aerospace were inaccurate and incomplete.

Securities Times reporter found that most listed companies that hype concepts share the following traits: either exaggerating connections to business cooperation with aerospace companies such as SpaceX; or presenting vague plans for aerospace technology; or using hot-topic tags to mislead the market into believing they are core participants in the space photovoltaics field.

Qi Haishen, CEO of Jinzhen Co., Ltd., told Securities Times reporter that amid the heat surrounding space photovoltaics, some companies follow the trend and hype irrationally, so the key is to distinguish rationally between a company’s core business and its connection to hot topics. Some companies may have related product layouts, but their scale and the proportion of core business differ; they cannot inflate their claims purely because of the hype. Space photovoltaics is a new application scenario with substantial potential, but market release must proceed step by step and cannot pursue explosive growth.

From the industry side, both industry and investment need to view space photovoltaics rationally: it should not be rushed to achieve results or expect a short-term boom. Development must proceed step by step and follow industrial laws. Compared with the civil market, space photovoltaics faces much more stringent requirements for market release. Although space resources are limited and companies’ demand to capture capacity is urgent, if the technology is not up to the mark, they must not be reckless, in order to avoid resource waste and industry chaos.

A director of a solar energy engineering technology research center in South China, Liang Shuang (a pseudonym), has been working on research into space photovoltaics for over 20 years. He told Securities Times reporter that in today’s space photovoltaics sector, information is “interwoven with accurate content, semi-accurate content, and content that violates common sense and comes from hearsay.” Even though leading ground-based solar companies frequently exchange ideas and discuss, it is hard to reach a clear consensus. The space photovoltaics and space computing concepts proposed by Musk, “even if rich in imagination, are vastly different from engineering reality,” and experts in the U.S. aerospace field have already raised public doubts.

The regulators have strict oversight over speculative behavior. Relevant core listed solar companies told Securities Times reporter that, nowadays, within the industry, terms related to space photovoltaics such as perovskite are practically taboo to discuss openly.

Technical Reality:

Ground Photovoltaics Can’t Be Taken Directly Into Space

As the “fueling station” for satellites, space photovoltaics mainly has three technical routes: gallium arsenide batteries, HJT batteries, and perovskite batteries. Gallium arsenide batteries are the mainstream but costly; HJT and perovskite batteries have not been truly applied yet because their technology is not mature.

When solar companies “compete to exhaustion” on the ground, who will get the ticket to the future of space photovoltaics?

Most solar companies either remain stuck in laboratories, obsessing over photovoltaic conversion efficiency, while some send solar cells to space for inspection and testing; others enter this track through mergers and acquisitions.

Regarding this, GCL Technology told Securities Times reporter that the company completed the world’s first perovskite module space-carrying test in 2023. It plans to conduct sample-delivery testing and near-space validation with China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation’s Institute 811 in 2026. Longi Green Energy’s HPBC cells were flown on the Shenzhou spacecraft twice to complete in-space tests, and it rolled out a flexible stacked battery with an efficiency of 33.4%. JinkoSolar said that the perovskite stacked battery lab efficiency reached 34.76%, and it is jointly building an AI experimental line with JingTai Technology to accelerate R&D. GCLD Co., Ltd. entered the satellite battery and whole-satellite R&D field through acquisitions and cooperation, among other approaches.

Lü Jinbiao, a consulting expert with the China Photovoltaic Industry Association, told reporters that the perovskite photovoltaic conversion efficiency claimed in labs often refers to results on small areas under ideal conditions. Whether they can be repeated, whether they can pass through small-scale trials and pilot production, and whether they can be industrialized—all of this still has a long way to go.

Liang Shuang said bluntly that the R&D and testing logic for space photovoltaics urgently needs to be adjusted. Ground photovoltaic focuses more on cost and energy generation. Currently, photovoltaic companies emphasize photovoltaic conversion efficiency, but satellites are not serviceable or replaceable. When a battery fails, the satellite is scrapped. Reliability is the first indicator, while efficiency is only a secondary reference; the design logic is completely different.

Beyond speculation, can the HJT and perovskite routes work in space?

In Liang Shuang’s view, the HJT principle is feasible, but the space value-for-money is extremely low.

This space photovoltaics expert said that HJT is not absolutely impossible to use in space, but it would require comprehensive transformation of electrode materials, manufacturing processes, and encapsulation technologies for the space environment. After such modification, problems like efficiency decline and cost increase would arise. Ground-based HJT electrodes cannot withstand extreme temperature variations and radiation in space; unmodified products fail rapidly once in orbit. Even after modification, they can meet short-term use (such as 6 months), but for the long term (over 5 years) they lack reliability and stability. As a result, their overall value-for-money is far worse than the long-established PERC path used for photovoltaic batteries. Industry research paths largely converge, all optimizing around environmental adaptation, leaving little room for truly disruptive original breakthroughs.

Liang Shuang disclosed that some companies take ground-based HJT cells directly into the air; they fail within days to months, but the relevant parties have not publicly released the failure results.

However, Qi Haishen said this situation is probabilistic. The space environment is complex, and satellite operation in orbit inherently has various possibilities of faults. You cannot deny HJT’s potential for space adaptation just because problems appear in some tests.

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

Liang Shuang told Securities Times reporter: “From a scientific principle standpoint, perovskite batteries are more suitable for satellite applications than crystalline silicon. Also, satellites tolerate battery cost far more than the ground. But the current technical route cannot work. The core advantage lies in weak-light response and avoiding water/oxygen degradation in vacuum conditions. Theoretical performance is superior to crystalline silicon, and in the long run it is expected to replace gallium arsenide batteries. But the fatal shortcomings are equally clear: ground-based perovskite cannot pass space high-low temperature cycling, strong ultraviolet, and radiation tests. Organic components decompose and sublime easily, and high-temperature storage for just a few hours leads to failure.”

He pointed out that in terms of development path, the “idea of replacing terrestrial crystalline silicon” must be abandoned. The focus should shift to R&D of space-dedicated technologies, tackling stability and radiation-hardness challenges. Within about 5 years, a feasible route may emerge.

PERC batteries are the space mainstream technology route that the industry has underestimated, and may face a “second spring.”

Liang Shuang introduced that as the most mature photovoltaic technology route, the market generally regards PERC as backward capacity. But in space, it is a mature solution that has been verified over a long period. “Before 2010, most satellites worldwide used single-crystal silicon/PERC cells. Their technical maturity and reliability have been tested in orbit for decades, and space lifetime can easily meet the 10–20 year requirement.” He predicted that terrestrial photovoltaics may also gradually return to PERC due to HJT power-station degradation issues. Existing TopCon production lines can be compatible with PERC production. The industry does not need to completely eliminate capacity—only restart technology optimization.

Industry Reality:

“Dilemma of Validation” and “Difficulty of Ecosystem”

Amid the noise of capital markets, space photovoltaics is facing a serious exam from “concept” to “engineering.” Although the prospects are broad, the industry is confronted with real difficulties such as missing validation systems, misaligned technical routes, and cost hurdles.

First comes the dilemma of validation. A source related to Mowei Co., Ltd. told Securities Times reporter that whether it is HJT or perovskite, theoretically it may be feasible, but the industry generally lacks in-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 developing solar arrays for satellites at an aerospace institute, told Securities Times reporter that they currently receive many requests from ground-based photovoltaic companies for in-space validation. But “the two sides often are not on the same wavelength.” For example, many companies directly test with N-type cells, not realizing that P-type cells are more suitable for space environments. Worse, some “validation” is based on what they have not even started learning the verification and improvement that should be done at the ground stage.

Even more, some so-called “validation” is merely for formality. Li Ran revealed that some photovoltaic companies send cells to space, but they do not generate electricity. Liang Shuang pointed out that sending samples from photovoltaic companies to institutions such as aerospace institutes is only the starting point for validation. A long process is required—ground testing, in-orbit integration, telemetry data collection, and so on—usually 2–3 years at the shortest and 5–8 years at the longest to achieve commercialization. It also requires system-level demonstration through satellite systems; it is not something that can pass just by sending in for inspection.

The root cause of this dilemma lies in a cognitive bias about “differences between heaven and earth.” Liang Shuang emphasized that ground photovoltaic products can never be used directly in space 100%; there are fundamental differences. First is extreme temperature differential: space must endure temperature swings of ±80℃ to ±120℃. For low-orbit satellites, the day-night cycle can reach 15 times, while on the ground only +80℃ to -20℃ can be achieved, with less than 1 cycle per day. Second is the strong radiation environment: ultraviolet in space and high-energy particle irradiation are extremely destructive to materials, and there are no corresponding simulation conditions on the ground. Third is process barriers: after welding and encapsulation technologies are taken into the sky, the failure rate is extremely high. Satellite-dedicated processes must be used.

Lü Jinbiao told Securities Times reporter that the development of space photovoltaics cannot focus only on the battery technology itself; it must be considered in the context of the entire industrial chain and commercial ecosystem. The true prerequisite for space photovoltaics to be feasible is that the entire market demand rises—for example, there need to be thousands or tens of thousands of satellites that require power, and those satellites must have clear commercial service targets and business models.

Evidently, the bottleneck in launch capability and the “uncertainty” of space computing constrain the large-scale adoption of space photovoltaics. Liang Shuang said that based on current launch capacity, Musk’s concept of a million satellites would take a century to complete. Meanwhile, components such as space GPUs and memory are extremely expensive and tend to fail in orbit, so market-oriented rollout is unlikely in the near term. At the same time, cost is also a major “roadblock” for the commercialization of space photovoltaics. Liang Shuang did some calculations: even if SpaceX reduces launch costs to 2000 USD per kilogram, delivering a GW-level system into orbit would still require several tens of billions of USD.

Industry chain compatibility is also questioned by the market. From upstream materials, the production capacity for ultra-light, radiation-resistant, high-temperature-tolerant materials that adapt to the space environment is insufficient. From midstream manufacturing, the customized production capacity for aerospace-grade photovoltaic modules is scarce, and most companies still rely on small-batch production in laboratories. From downstream operations and maintenance, in-orbit robots and space repair equipment are almost nonexistent. In response, Lü Jinbiao said that aerospace-grade high-temperature-tolerant materials, customized module capacity, and so on, will be driven by market competition to be supplied once commercial demand becomes clear, rather than building the industrial chain first and waiting for demand later.

In the face of the craze, it is necessary to return to rationality, reconstruct technical priorities, and adjust industrial pacing.

Liang Shuang said: “First, technical priorities need to be reshaped: space photovoltaics should abandon ‘lab efficiency worship,’ focus on pragmatism, and prioritize solving reliability, environmental adaptation, and in-orbit lifetime issues. Efficiency is only an auxiliary metric. Second, routes should be differentiated: HJT should focus on ground scenarios, PERC should maintain its position as the mainstream in space, and perovskite should shift toward space-dedicated R&D. The three should each do their own part to avoid blind competition across scenarios. Third, industrial pacing should slow down: photovoltaic companies should plan rationally, treating space photovoltaics as a long-term technology reserve of more than 10 years, rather than a short-term growth point for earnings.”

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

(Editor: Liu Chang) )

     【Disclaimer】This article only represents the author’s own views and is not related to Hexun. The Hexun website remains neutral toward the statements and viewpoints made in the text and provides no express or implied guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the included content. Readers are requested to use the information solely as a reference and bear all responsibility for their own actions. Email: news_center@staff.hexun.com