Space Photovoltaics: The Billion-Dollar Boom of Conceptual Frenzy and Industry Reality

Byline: Intern Reporter Yin Jingfei

The space solar sector is red-hot, which has prompted “ground-based solar companies that are stuck in excess capacity and profit losses” to rush to “go to space” and tell their stories. After conducting an in-depth investigation, a Securities Times reporter found that: most “space solar” efforts remain trapped in PPT slides and laboratories. Popular routes such as HJT (heterojunction solar cells) and perovskite are “feasible in principle—yet once it’s time to go to space, it’s a waste.” PERC (passivated emitter and rear cell) is viewed by experts as an underestimated, mature solution. With missing validation and an industry ecosystem that is far from mature—this “seas of stars” hot-spot frenzy may just be a concept carnival.

Recently, regulators have unleashed a series of tough measures against companies that are cashing in on hot trends. Industry experts are calling for a return to engineering fundamentals and industry laws, so that this technology can truly move toward the “vast universe.”

Concept hype: Calls in a crackdown from regulators

With mature technologies such as reusable rockets pushing global launches into a scaled era, and coupled with the space computing concept proposed by Musk, the imagination of a trillion-dollar market for space solar has been sparked. Entering April, driven by positive catalysts such as SpaceX convening an IPO syndicate start meeting on April 6, the space solar concept has become active again in the short term.

Since this year, multiple listed companies in China’s A-share market have been punished for hype involving “SpaceX, commercial spaceflight and other concepts.” Solar companies such as Shuangliang Energy Saving (600481), Trina Solar (and others) were penalized by the Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau and issued regulatory warning by the Shanghai Stock Exchange, respectively, because they released vague information about cooperation with SpaceX, forming “trend-chasing” hype. In addition, Guoke Military Industry, Hangxiao Steel Structure (600477), Vokter Optoelectronics (603773), and ECE Digital were issued regulatory warnings because their releases of information related to commercial spaceflight were inaccurate or incomplete.

The Securities Times reporter found that most listed companies engaging in concept-chasing share these characteristics: either they exaggerate the linkage between their business and cooperation with aerospace enterprises such as SpaceX; or they blur their plans for space-related technology; or they rely on hot-spot labels to mislead the market into thinking they are core participants in the space solar field.

Qi Haishen, CEO of Jinzhen Shares, told the Securities Times reporter that while some companies have followed the trend and hype in the wake of the space solar heat, they need to rationally distinguish between a company’s core business and how closely it is tied to the hot topic. Some companies may have related product layouts, but their scale and the proportion of core business vary, so they cannot exaggerate their claims because of the hype. Space solar is a new application scenario with significant potential, but how the market releases demand must be gradual; it cannot pursue explosive growth.

From the industry side, both industry players and investors need to view space solar rationally. They must not rush for quick success or expect short-term breakthroughs. Development must proceed step by step and follow industry规律. The market release for space solar is even more stringent than for the consumer market. Although space resources are limited and companies’ demand to secure production capacity is urgent, if the technology is not up to standard, it cannot be pushed forward recklessly—so as to avoid resource waste and disorder in the industry.

Liang Shuang (a pseudonym), Director of the Engineering Technology Research Center of a solar company in South China (000591), has been working on space solar research for over twenty years. He told the Securities Times reporter that today’s space solar field is “a mix of content that is accurate, half-accurate, violates common sense, and is based on hearsay,” while leading ground-based solar companies frequently exchange and discuss, yet there is still no clear consensus. Musk’s space solar and space computing vision, “while imaginative, is far from engineering reality,” and experts in the U.S. aerospace sector have already raised public questions about it.

Regulators have issued strict supervision over hype behavior. Related core listed solar companies told the Securities Times reporter that, nowadays, in the industry, terms related to perovskites and other space solar topics are discussed with an almost taboo level of secrecy.

Technical truths:

Ground-based solar can’t go to space directly

As a “fuel station” for satellites, space solar mainly has three technical routes: gallium arsenide cells, HJT cells, and perovskite cells. Gallium arsenide cells are mainstream but costly; HJT and perovskite cells have not yet been truly used because their technologies are still not mature.

When ground-based solar is “too competitive and too ruthless,” who will get the ticket to the future of space solar?

Most solar companies either stay in laboratories, fixated on photoelectric conversion efficiency, while some ship solar cells to space for testing. There are also companies that enter this space by going through mergers and acquisitions.

Regarding this, GCL Technology told the Securities Times reporter that the company completed the world’s first perovskite module space mounting test in 2023. It plans to conduct sample delivery testing and near-space verification with the 811 Institute of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (000901) in 2026. Longi Green Energy’s HPBC cells were mounted on the Shenzhou spacecraft twice to complete in-space measurements, and the company also launched a flexible stacked battery with an efficiency of 33.4%. JinkoSolar said its perovskite tandem cell laboratory efficiency reaches 34.76%, and it jointly builds an AI experimental line with JingTai Technology to accelerate R&D. Junda Shares (002865) is entering the satellite battery and entire-satellite R&D field through acquisitions and cooperation, among other approaches.

China Photovoltaic Industry Association consulting expert Lü Jinbiao told reporters that the perovskite photoelectric conversion efficiency claimed in laboratories is often only a small-area, ideal-condition result. Whether it can be reproduced, whether it can pass through small-scale trials and pilot production, and whether it can be industrialized—all of this still has a long way to go.

Liang Shuang said plainly that the R&D and testing logic for space solar urgently needs to be adjusted. Ground-based solar places more emphasis on cost and power generation. Currently, photovoltaic companies focus on photoelectric conversion efficiency, but satellites cannot be repaired or replaced; when a battery fails, the satellite is effectively scrapped. Reliability is the first indicator, while efficiency is only a secondary reference. The design logic is entirely different.

Beyond the hype, can the HJT and perovskite routes actually work?

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

This space solar expert said directly that HJT is not absolutely impossible to use in space, but it would require comprehensive modifications to electrode materials, fabrication processes, and encapsulation technology tailored to the space environment. After such modification, efficiency would drop and costs would rise. Ground-based HJT electrodes cannot withstand extreme thermal cycling and irradiation in space; without improvement, products fail rapidly in orbit. After modification, they may meet short-term use (such as 6 months), but for the long term (over 5 years), their reliability and stability are insufficient, making their overall cost-performance far worse than PERC—the older mainstream pathway of photovoltaic cells. The industry research paths are broadly similar; they all center on optimizing environmental adaptation and are unlikely to deliver disruptive original breakthroughs.

Liang Shuang revealed that some companies have taken ground-based HJT cells directly to the sky, and they failed within days to months; however, the relevant parties have not publicly disclosed the failure results.

But Qi Haishen said this situation is probabilistic. Space environments are complex, and the operation of satellites in orbit inherently involves various potential faults. One should not deny HJT’s potential for space adaptation just because some tests have problems.

For perovskite cells, the underlying principle adapts to space, but the route must be completely rebuilt.

Liang Shuang told the Securities Times reporter: “From a scientific principle standpoint, perovskite cells are more suitable for satellite applications than crystalline silicon. Also, satellites tolerate battery costs much more than ground-based systems do. However, the current technical route is not workable. The core advantages are weak-light response and avoiding water/oxygen degradation in a vacuum environment. In theory, performance is better than crystalline silicon, and in the long run it may replace gallium arsenide cells. But the fatal shortfalls are also obvious: ground-based perovskites cannot pass space high/low temperature cycling, strong ultraviolet, and irradiation testing. Organic components decompose and sublimate easily, and high-temperature storage for just a few hours leads to failure.”

He pointed out that in terms of development route, the “idea of replacing ground-based crystalline silicon” must be abandoned, and development must shift to space-dedicated technology R&D. The goal is to overcome stability and anti-radiation challenges, and a feasible route may emerge within around five years.

PERC cells are a mainstream space technology path that has been underestimated by the industry, and may face “a second life.”

Liang Shuang explained that as the most mature photovoltaic technology route, the market generally sees PERC as outdated capacity. But in the space domain, it is a mature solution that has been verified over a long period. “Before 2010, the world’s satellites predominantly used single-crystal silicon/PERC cells. Technical maturity and reliability have been tested in orbit for decades, and space lifetime needs of easily 10–20 years can be met.” He predicted that ground-based 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 to restart and optimize the technology.

Industry reality:

“The困境 of validation” and “the difficulty of an ecosystem”

Amid the clamor of the capital markets, space solar is facing a severe test from “concept” to “engineering.” Despite promising prospects, the industry is confronting real dilemmas such as the lack of a validation system, misalignment among technical routes, and cost barriers.

First is the困境 of validation. An official related to MWEI股份 (300751) candidly told the Securities Times reporter that whether it’s HJT or perovskite, in theory they are feasible, but the industry generally lacks in-orbit evidence data.

This lack of data stems from various chaos and shortcomings in the validation process. A person involved in the development of solar arrays at a certain aerospace institute, Li Ran (a pseudonym), told the Securities Times reporter that currently they have received numerous requests from ground-based photovoltaic companies to verify in space. But “the two sides are often not on the same wavelength.” For example, many companies directly test N-type cells, not realizing that P-type cells are actually more suited to the space environment. Some, even more so, have not “even started” with the validation and improvements that should be done at the ground stage.

Even worse, some so-called “validation” is merely a formality. Li Ran revealed that some photovoltaic companies send batteries to space, but do not actually generate electricity. Liang Shuang pointed out that when photovoltaic companies send samples to institutions such as aerospace institutes, it is only the starting point of validation. It must go through a long process including ground testing, in-orbit mounting, and telemetry data collection, and it takes at least 2–3 years, or as long as 5–8 years, to achieve commercialization. Moreover, it must pass system-level argumentation for the satellite; it is not as simple as sending for inspection and getting approval.

The root of this dilemma lies in misconceptions about “differences between earth and space.” Liang Shuang emphasized that 100% of ground-based photovoltaic products cannot be directly used in space; there are fundamental differences. First is extreme thermal cycling: space must withstand temperature swings of ±80°C to ±120°C. For low-orbit satellites, the daily cycle can be as high as 15 times, while on the ground only +80°C to -20°C is possible, with a daily cycle of fewer than 1 time. Second is the strong radiation environment: ultraviolet in space and irradiation by high-energy particles can be extremely destructive to materials, with no corresponding simulation conditions on the ground. Third is process barriers: ground-based soldering and encapsulation technologies have extremely high failure rates after moving into space, so satellite-specific processes must be used.

Lü Jinbiao told the Securities Times reporter that the development of space solar should not focus solely on battery technology itself. It should be considered within the entire industrial chain and business ecosystem. The real prerequisite for space solar to be feasible is that the overall market demand has to rise—for example, there need to be thousands or tens of thousands of satellites requiring electricity, and these satellites must have clear commercial service targets and business models.

Evidently, bottlenecks in launch capability and the “uncertainty” of space computing constrain large-scale adoption of space solar. Liang Shuang said that with existing launch capacity, Musk’s plan for a million satellites would take 100 years to complete. Meanwhile, the costs of space GPUs, memory, and other components are extremely high and they are prone to failure in orbit, making market-based rollout unlikely in the near term. At the same time, cost is another major “roadblock” for the commercialization of space solar. Liang Shuang calculated: even if SpaceX brings the launch cost down to 2000 dollars per kilogram, placing a GW-level system into orbit would still require hundreds of millions of dollars.

Market skepticism also applies to industrial chain compatibility. From upstream materials, production capacity for ultra-light, anti-radiation, and high-temperature-tolerant materials suitable for space is insufficient. From midstream manufacturing, customized production capacity for aerospace-grade photovoltaic modules is scarce; most companies still rely on lab-scale small-batch production. From downstream operation and maintenance, in-orbit robotics (300024) and space repair equipment are almost blank. In response, Lü Jinbiao said that aerospace-grade high-temperature-tolerant materials and customized module capacity will be supplied and driven by market competition once commercial demand becomes clear, rather than building the industrial chain first and waiting for demand later.

In the face of the boom, rationality is needed—to rebuild technical priorities and align industry pacing.

Liang Shuang said: “First, technical priorities need to be reshaped. Space solar should abandon ‘lab efficiency worship,’ and focus on pragmatism. It should prioritize solving reliability, environmental adaptation, and in-orbit lifetime issues, with efficiency only as a supporting metric. Second, routes should be differentiated: HJT should focus on ground-based scenarios, PERC should stick to the mainstream space position, and perovskite should shift to space-dedicated R&D. All three should do their own parts, avoiding blind competition across scenarios. Third, industry pacing should slow down: photovoltaic companies should plan rationally, treating space solar as a long-term technology reserve of more than 10 years, not as a short-term earnings growth point.”

He concluded with: “In the hype around space solar, only by returning to the engineering fundamentals and industry rules, and by discarding financialized speculation and one-sided opinion guidance, can this technology truly move toward practical use instead of remaining stuck in science fiction and capital stories.”

(Editor: Zhang Yang HN080）

     【Disclaimer】This article only represents the author’s personal viewpoints and is not related to Hexun. The Hexun website maintains neutrality toward the statements and judgment viewpoints in the text, and provides no explicit or implied guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the contents included herein. Readers should treat this as information only and bear all responsibility for their own actions. Email: news_center@staff.hexun.com

Report