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

An Intern Reporter, Yin Jingfei

The space photovoltaics sector is extremely hot, which has caused “ground-based photovoltaic companies that have fallen into overcapacity and performance losses” to rush to “go to space” and tell their stories. After an in-depth investigation, a Securities Times reporter found that most “space photovoltaics” remain stuck in PPTs and laboratories. Popular routes such as HJT and perovskite “are feasible in principle, but become useless once launched to space.” PERC (passivated emitter and rear cell technology) is viewed by experts as an underrated mature solution. With missing validation, and the industrial ecosystem far from mature, this “stars and oceans” frenzy of hype may simply be a celebration of concepts.

Recently, regulatory authorities have delivered a series of strong measures against listed companies that have been蹭热点. Industry experts have called for: only by returning to the engineering essence and the laws of industry development can this technology truly head toward the “vast cosmos.”

Concept hype: attracts heavy regulatory crackdowns

Mature technologies such as reusable rockets have pushed global launches into a scaling era. In addition, Musk’s proposal for a space computing-power concept has fueled imagination of a trillion-yuan market scale for space photovoltaics. Entering April, supported by positive catalysts such as SpaceX convening an IPO syndicate kickoff meeting on April 6, the space photovoltaics concept has become active again in the short term.

This year alone, in China’s A-share market, multiple listed companies have been punished for “hype involving concepts such as SpaceX and commercial spaceflight.” Photovoltaics companies including Double-Liang Energy Saving (legal rights protection) and Trina Solar, for issuing vague information about cooperation with SpaceX, were found to have engaged in hotspot-蹭热 hype, receiving penalties from the Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau and regulatory warning letters from the Shanghai Stock Exchange, respectively. In addition, Guoke Military Industry, Hangxiao Steel Structure (legal rights protection), Woguang Optoelectronics, and ECE Digital (legal rights protection), among others, were given regulatory warning letters because the information released related to commercial spaceflight was inaccurate or incomplete.

A Securities Times reporter found that most listed companies that蹭概念 show the following characteristics: either they exaggerate their business cooperation links with aerospace companies such as SpaceX; or they blur their aerospace technology roadmap; or they use hotspot labels to mislead the market into believing they are core participants in the space photovoltaics field.

Qi Haishen, CEO of Jinzhen Co., Ltd., told a Securities Times reporter that amid the heat of space photovoltaics, some companies are following the trend with hype, so they need to distinguish rationally between a company’s core business and the degree of its connection to the hotspot. Some companies have related product layouts, but their scale and core business share differ, so they cannot exaggerate their claims because of the hype. Space photovoltaics is a new application scenario with considerable potential, but market release must proceed step by step; one should not pursue explosive growth.

From the industry perspective, both industry players and investors need to view space photovoltaics rationally. They should not rush for success or expect a near-term boom. Development must proceed step by step and follow industry laws. The market release of space photovoltaics is far more stringent than that of civilian markets. Although space resources are limited and competition for capacity is urgent, if the technology is not up to standard, it cannot be pushed forward recklessly—avoiding resource waste and disorder in the industry.

Liang Shuang (a pseudonym), director of a solar engineering technology research center in South China, has been engaged in space photovoltaics research for more than 20 years. He told a Securities Times reporter that in today’s space photovoltaics field, information “is a mix of accurate, half-accurate, content that violates common sense, and hearsay.” The leading ground-based photovoltaic companies frequently exchange and discuss, yet there is still no clear consensus. Regarding Musk’s space photovoltaics and space computing-power concept, “although it is rich in imagination, the gap with engineering reality is enormous.” Experts in the U.S. aerospace field have already publicly raised doubts about it.

Regulatory authorities have strict oversight of hype behavior. Relevant core photovoltaics listed companies told a Securities Times reporter that today, within the industry, people are tight-lipped about terms related to space photovoltaics, such as perovskites.

Technical truth:

Ground-based photovoltaics can’t be taken directly to space

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

Photovoltaics companies “compete fiercely to squeeze each other” on the ground—so who will get the ticket to the future of space photovoltaics?

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

Concerning GCL Technology, a Securities Times reporter was told 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 have been flown on Shenzhou spacecraft twice to complete in-space tests and have also released flexible stacked-layer batteries with an efficiency of 33.4%. JinkoSolar said that perovskite stacked-layer cells achieved a laboratory efficiency of 34.76%, and it is building an AI experiment line together with JingTai Technology to accelerate R&D. Junda Co., Ltd. has entered the satellite battery and full-satellite system R&D domain through acquisitions and cooperation, among other approaches.

Consulting expert Lü Jinbiao from the China Photovoltaic Industry Association told reporters that the perovskite photovoltaic-to-electric conversion efficiencies claimed in laboratories are often results from small-area, ideal conditions. Whether they can be repeated, whether they can pass from small-scale tests to pilot tests, and whether they can be industrialized—there is still 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 photovoltaics focuses more on cost and electricity generation. Currently, photovoltaic companies emphasize photoelectric conversion efficiency, but satellites are not repairable and cannot be replaced. When a battery fails, the satellite is scrapped. Reliability is the first indicator; efficiency is only a secondary reference. The design logic is completely different.

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

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

This space photovoltaics expert said directly that HJT is not absolutely impossible for use in space, but it would require comprehensive reconstruction for electrode materials, manufacturing processes, and encapsulation technologies tailored to the space environment. After modification, there would be problems such as efficiency decreasing and costs increasing. Ground-based HJT electrodes cannot withstand space extreme temperature cycling and irradiation. Unmodified products fail rapidly in orbit. After modification, they may meet short-term usage (such as 6 months), but for long-term reliability and stability (more than 5 years), they are insufficient, making their overall cost-performance far worse than the old mainstream photovoltaic battery route, PERC. The industry research paths are largely similar—both focus on optimizing environmental adaptation, making it hard to achieve disruptive original breakthroughs.

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

However, Qi Haishen said this situation is a probabilistic event. The space environment is complex, and satellites operating in orbit inherently have various possible faults. One cannot deny HJT’s potential for space adaptation just because problems appear in some tests.

For perovskite batteries, the principle is adaptable to space, but the route must be completely rebuilt.

Liang Shuang told a Securities Times reporter: “From a scientific principle standpoint, perovskite batteries are more suitable for satellite applications than silicon. And satellites tolerate battery cost far more than the ground does. But today’s technology route cannot work. The core advantages are weak-light response and avoidance of water/oxygen degradation in vacuum, so the theoretical performance is better than silicon. In the long run, it may replace gallium arsenide batteries. But the fatal shortcomings are equally obvious: ground-based perovskites cannot pass space high-low temperature cycling, strong ultraviolet, and irradiation tests. Organic components are prone to decomposition and sublimation; high-temperature storage for just a few hours will cause failure.”

He pointed out that in terms of development paths, it is necessary to abandon the idea of “replacing ground silicon,” and instead pivot to developing space-dedicated technologies—overcoming stability and anti-irradiation challenges. Around 5 years may be enough to produce a viable route.

PERC batteries, however, are the space mainstream technology route that the industry has underestimated—and may be facing a “second rebirth.”

Liang Shuang introduced that as the most mature photovoltaic technology route, the market generally regards PERC as outdated excess capacity. But in the space domain, it is a mature solution that has been validated over a long period. “Before 2010, global satellites mostly used monocrystalline silicon/PERC batteries. Their technology maturity and reliability have been verified through decades of in-orbit testing, and their space lifetime easily meets the 10–20 year requirement.” He predicts that due to attenuation issues in HJT power stations, ground photovoltaics may also gradually return to PERC. Existing TopCon production lines can be compatible with PERC manufacturing, so the industry does not need to completely eliminate capacity—only needs to restart technology optimization.

Industry reality:

“The困” of validation and “the难” of ecosystem

Amid the noise of capital markets, space photovoltaics is facing a rigorous exam from “concept” to “engineering.” Although the outlook is broad, the industry is confronted with real dilemmas such as missing validation systems, misaligned technology routes, and cost barriers.

First and foremost is the “困” of validation. Relevant personnel at Mairwei Co., Ltd. candidly told a Securities Times reporter that whether it is HJT or perovskite, theoretically it may work, but the industry generally lacks in-orbit empirical data.

The absence of such data stems from various乱象 and shortcomings in the validation process. Li Ran (a pseudonym), who works in solar array wing R&D at a certain aerospace institute, told a Securities Times reporter that they are currently receiving a large number of requests from ground-based photovoltaic companies to validate products in space. But “the two sides are often not on the same wavelength.” For example, many companies directly test N-type cells. They don’t realize that P-type cells are more suitable for the space environment. Worse, some “verification” that should be done at the ground stage has “not even been started.”

Even more, some so-called “verifications” are merely formalities. Li Ran said that some photovoltaic companies send batteries to the sky, but they do not generate electricity. Liang Shuang pointed out that when photovoltaic companies send samples to institutions such as aerospace institutes, it is only the starting point for validation. It must go through a long process including ground testing, in-orbit payload integration, and telemetry data collection. It takes as short as 2–3 years and as long as 5–8 years to achieve commercialization. And it must also pass system-level demonstration and argumentation in the satellite system—simply sending for inspection is not enough to pass.

The root cause of this dilemma lies in a misperception about the “differences between heaven and earth.” Liang Shuang emphasized that ground photovoltaic products cannot be used in space 100% directly; the two have fundamental differences. First, extreme temperature differentials: space must withstand temperature swings of ±80℃ to ±120℃. In low-orbit satellites, the daily temperature cycle can reach up to 15 times, while on the ground it can only achieve +80℃ to -20℃ with fewer than 1 cycle per day. Second, the strong radiation environment: space ultraviolet and high-energy particle irradiation are extremely damaging to materials, and the ground has no corresponding simulation conditions. Third, process barriers: the failure rate is extremely high for welding and encapsulation techniques after they are brought into space. Satellite-dedicated processes are required.

Lü Jinbiao told a Securities Times reporter that the development of space photovoltaics cannot focus solely on the battery technology itself. It must be considered across 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 of satellites that require electricity, and those satellites also have clear commercial service customers and a commercial business model.

Evidently, the bottleneck in launch capability and the “uncertainty” of space computing power constrain the scalable popularization of space photovoltaics. Liang Shuang said that based on current launch capacity, Musk’s concept of one million satellites would take a century to complete. Meanwhile, the costs of space GPUs and memory are extremely high and they are prone to failure in orbit, so market-based deployment remains far off. At the same time, cost is also a major “roadblock” to the commercialization of space photovoltaics. Liang Shuang did the math: even if SpaceX reduces launch costs to 2000 US dollars per kilogram, putting a GW-level system into orbit would still require hundreds of billions of dollars.

Market skepticism also challenges compatibility across the industrial chain. From the upstream materials side, there is insufficient production capacity for ultra-light, anti-radiation, and high-temperature-tolerant materials that can adapt to the space environment. From the midstream manufacturing side, custom production capacity for aerospace-grade photovoltaic modules is scarce; most companies still rely on small-batch production in laboratories. From the downstream operations and maintenance side, in-orbit robots and space repair equipment are almost nonexistent. In response, Lü Jinbiao said that aerospace-grade high-temperature materials and custom module capacity, after commercial demand becomes clear, will be supplied driven by market competition—not by building the industrial chain first and then waiting for demand.

In the face of the boom, it is necessary to return to rationality—reconstruct technology priorities and the pace of industry development.

Liang Shuang said: “First, technology priorities need to be reshaped: space photovoltaics should abandon ‘lab efficiency worship.’ With pragmatism at its core, it should prioritize solving reliability, environmental adaptation, and in-orbit lifetime issues; efficiency is only an auxiliary metric. Second, the routes should be differentiated: HJT should focus on ground scenarios, PERC should maintain its mainstream position in space, and perovskite should shift to space-dedicated R&D. The three should each do their own jobs, avoiding blind competition across scenarios. Third, the pace of industry should slow down: photovoltaic companies should make rational plans, treating space photovoltaics as long-term technology reserves of 10 years or more, rather than as a short-term earnings growth point.”

He concluded with: “Amid the heat of space photovoltaics, only by returning to engineering fundamentals and the laws of industry development—discarding financialization hype and one-sided public-opinion guidance—can this technology truly move toward practical use, rather than remaining confined to science fiction and capital stories.”

(Source: Securities Times)