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

Byline Reporter Yin Jingfei

The space photovoltaics track is scorching hot, which has prompted land-based solar companies—“caught in excess capacity and performance losses”—to rush to “go up to the sky” and tell their stories. Securities Times reporters conducted an in-depth investigation and found that: most “space photovoltaics” mostly remain in PPT slides and in the lab; for popular routes such as HJT (heterojunction solar cells) and perovskite, “the underlying principles are feasible, but once they go to space, they’re scrapped”; experts view PERC (passivated emitter and rear cell technology) as an underestimated but mature solution. With missing verification and an industrial ecosystem far from mature, this hot scramble for a “stars and sea” future might just be a carnival of concepts.

Recently, regulators have delivered a series of strong moves against companies that have been chasing hot topics. Industry experts call for: only by returning to engineering fundamentals and industrial rules can this technology truly move toward the “vast universe.”

Concept hype: attracts heavy regulatory action

With technologies like reusable rockets helping drive global launches into a scaled era, along with Musk’s space computing concept, space photovoltaics has fueled imaginations of a trillion-yuan-plus market scale. Entering April, boosted by catalysts such as SpaceX holding an IPO syndicate launch meeting on April 6, the space photovoltaics 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 “SpaceX, commercial spaceflight, and other concept” hype. Solar companies such as Liangyou Energy Saving (600481) and Trina Solar were punished by the Jiangsu Securities Regulatory Bureau and cautioned by the Shanghai Stock Exchange, respectively, because they released vague information about cooperation with SpaceX, which constituted hot-topic chasing. In addition, Guoke Defense (?), Hangxiao Steel Structure (600477), Voger Photoelectric (603773), and ECHIDNA Digital were also cautioned for inaccurately or incompletely releasing information related to commercial spaceflight.

Securities Times reporters found that most listed companies that chase concepts share the following characteristics: either they exaggerate the association between their business cooperation and aerospace companies such as SpaceX; or they blur their aerospace technology roadmaps; or they use trending tag labels 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 reporters that, among some companies, there is “following the trend” hype under the heat of space photovoltaics. Companies need to rationally distinguish their core businesses from their degree of association with the hot theme; some companies also have related product layouts, but their scale and the proportion of core business differ—so they cannot exaggerate their claims because of the heat. Space photovoltaics is a new application scenario with considerable potential, but market release must proceed step by step; it cannot pursue explosive growth.

From the industrial end, both industry and investment need to treat space photovoltaics rationally. It should not rush for quick success or expect short-term breakthroughs; development must proceed step by step and follow industrial laws. The market release of space photovoltaics is even more stringent than that of civilian markets. Although space resources are limited and companies’ demand to secure capacity is urgent, technologies that are not up to standard must not be pushed forward rashly—so as to avoid resource waste and disorder in the industry.

A person surnamed Liang Shuang (a pseudonym), director of the Engineering Technology Research Center of a solar company in South China (000591), has worked on space photovoltaics research for more than twenty years. He told Securities Times reporters that currently, information in the space photovoltaics field is “interwoven with accurate, half-accurate content, and content that violates common sense and is hearsay.” Although leading land-based photovoltaic companies frequently exchange and discuss, it is still hard to reach a clear consensus. The space photovoltaics and space computing concepts proposed by Musk, “while rich in imagination, are very far from engineering reality.” Experts in the U.S. aerospace field have already raised public doubts about them.

Regulators have strict oversight of hype behavior. Related core photovoltaic listed companies told Securities Times reporters that now, within the industry, terms related to space photovoltaics—such as perovskite—are treated as taboo.

Technical truth:

Land-based photovoltaics can’t directly go to the sky

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 expensive; HJT and perovskite batteries have not yet been truly applied because the technology is not mature.

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

Most photovoltaic companies either stay stuck in the lab, obsessing over photoelectric conversion efficiency, or—some send photovoltaic cells to space for testing, and others enter this track through acquisitions.

In an announcement to Securities Times reporters, GCL Technology stated that it completed the world’s first perovskite module space integration test in 2023, and plans to conduct sample delivery testing and near-space verification together with the 811 Institute of the China Academy of Aerospace Technology (000901) in 2026. LONGi Green Energy’s HPBC batteries have been mounted on the Shenzhou spacecraft twice to complete in-space tests, and it has also released a flexible stacked battery with an efficiency of 33.4%. JinkoSolar claims that the lab efficiency of perovskite tandem batteries is 34.76%, and it has jointly built an AI lab line with J&T Technology to accelerate R&D. Gindor Co., Ltd. (002865) has entered the satellite battery and complete-satellite development field through means such as acquisitions and cooperation.

An industry consultant expert Lü Jinbiao from the China Photovoltaic Industry Association told reporters that the perovskite photoelectric conversion efficiency claimed in laboratories is often just small-area results under ideal conditions. Whether it can be repeated, whether it can pass small-scale and pilot-scale tests, and whether it can be industrialized—all of that is still a long way off.

Liang Shuang said bluntly that the R&D and testing logic for space photovoltaics urgently needs adjustment. Land-based photovoltaics focuses more on cost and power generation; currently, photovoltaic companies emphasize photoelectric conversion efficiency. But satellites cannot be repaired or replaced; when a battery fails, the satellite is scrapped. Reliability is the primary metric, while efficiency is only a secondary reference. The design logic is completely different.

Beyond hype, can the HJT and perovskite routes be made to work?

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

This space photovoltaics expert said directly that HJT is not absolutely impossible for space use, but it requires comprehensive modification of electrode materials, fabrication processes, and encapsulation technologies for the space environment. After modification, issues such as efficiency drop and cost increase will appear. Land-based HJT electrodes cannot withstand extreme temperature variations and irradiation in space; products that are not improved fail rapidly in orbit. After modification, they may meet short-term use (e.g., 6 months), but long-term (more than 5 years) reliability and stability are insufficient, and the overall cost-performance ratio is far worse than the older mainstream PERC path for photovoltaic cells. Industry research paths are largely similar; they all revolve around environment adaptation optimization, leaving little room for disruptive original breakthroughs.

Liang Shuang disclosed that some companies take land-based HJT batteries directly to space, but they fail within days to months; however, the parties concerned have not published the failure results.

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

For perovskite batteries, the underlying principle is suitable for 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. And satellites can tolerate battery cost far more than land-based applications. But its current technical route cannot work. The core advantage lies in weak-light response and avoiding water/oxygen degradation in vacuum environments; theoretically, performance is better than silicon. In the long run, perovskites may replace gallium arsenide batteries. But the fatal shortcomings are equally obvious: land-based perovskites cannot pass space high/low temperature alternating tests, strong ultraviolet, and irradiation tests. Organic components decompose and sublimate easily; after a few hours of high-temperature storage, they fail.”

He pointed out that in terms of development path, the “idea of replacing terrestrial silicon” must be abandoned, shifting to R&D of space-dedicated technologies to tackle issues of stability and resistance to radiation. Around 5 years later, it may be possible to move onto a feasible route.

PERC batteries, meanwhile, are the space mainstream technology path that the industry underestimates and may see a “second spring.”

Liang Shuang introduced that as the most mature photovoltaic technology route, the market generally regards PERC as backward excess capacity. But in the space domain, it is a mature solution that has been validated over a long period. “Before 2010, satellites globally mostly used single-crystal silicon / PERC cells. The technology maturity and reliability were tested through decades of in-orbit verification, and space lifetime can easily meet the requirement of 10 to 20 years.” He predicts that land-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, meaning the industry does not need to eliminate capacity entirely; it only needs to restart technology optimization.

Industry reality:

“The dilemma of validation” and “the difficulty of ecosystem building”

Amid the noise of capital markets, space photovoltaics is facing a serious examination from “concept” to “engineering.” Although the prospects are broad, the industry also faces real obstacles such as missing validation systems, misaligned technology routes, and cost barriers.

First is the dilemma of validation. A source related to Mavre Technology (300751) told Securities Times reporters that whether it is HJT or perovskite, in theory they are 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), an individual working on solar array wing R&D at a certain aerospace institute, told Securities Times reporters that they are currently receiving many requests from land-based photovoltaic companies for in-space validation. But the two sides often are “not on the same wavelength.” For example, many companies directly use N-type cells for testing, not realizing that P-type cells are more suitable for the space environment. Some go even further: they have not even started on the validations and improvements that should be done at the ground stage.

Worse still, some so-called “validations” are mere formalities. Li Ran revealed that some photovoltaic companies send batteries to space, but they do not generate electricity. Liang Shuang pointed out that when photovoltaic companies send samples to organizations like aerospace institutes, that is only the starting point for validation. It requires a long process including ground tests, in-orbit integration, telemetry data collection, and more—commercialization can only be realized in a short time of 2 to 3 years, or a long time of 5 to 8 years. It also needs to pass system-level argumentation for the satellite system; simply sending for inspection is not enough to pass.

The root cause of this dilemma lies in a cognitive bias regarding “differences between heaven and earth.” Liang Shuang emphasized that land-based photovoltaic products cannot be used in space 100%; there are fundamental differences between the two. First are extreme temperature differentials: space must endure temperature swings of ±80°C to ±120°C; for low-orbit satellites, the daily temperature cycle can reach 15 times, while on the ground only about +80°C to -20°C can be achieved, with fewer than 1 daily cycle. Second are strong radiation environments: ultraviolet radiation and high-energy particle irradiation in space are extremely destructive to materials, with no corresponding simulation conditions on the ground. Third are process barriers: after ground welding and encapsulation technologies fail in space, the failure rate is extremely high. Satellite-dedicated processes are required.

Lü Jinbiao told Securities Times reporters that space photovoltaics development cannot only focus on battery technology itself. It must be considered within the entire industrial chain and commercial ecosystem. The true prerequisite for space photovoltaics to be feasible is that market demand actually rises—for example, there are thousands or tens of thousands of satellites needing electricity, and those satellites have clear commercial service targets and business models.

Evidently, bottlenecks in launch capability and the “uncertainty” of space computing constrain the scaled adoption of space photovoltaics. Liang Shuang said that based on current launch capability, Musk’s concept of one million satellites would take a hundred years to complete. Meanwhile, the costs of space GPUs, memory, and other components are extremely high and they are prone to failure in orbit; commercial deployment is still far off. At the same time, cost is also a major “roadblock” for space photovoltaics commercialization. Liang Shuang calculated: even if SpaceX reduces launch costs to 2000 dollars per kilogram, sending a GW-level system into orbit would still require hundreds of billions of dollars.

Market skepticism also exists around industrial chain compatibility. From the upstream materials perspective, there is insufficient capacity for ultra-light, radiation-resistant, and high-temperature-tolerant materials that can adapt to the space environment. From the midstream manufacturing perspective, capacity for aerospace-grade photovoltaic modules with custom requirements is scarce, and most companies still rely on lab-scale small-batch production. From the downstream operation and maintenance perspective, in-orbit robots (300024) and space maintenance equipment are basically blank. In response, Lü Jinbiao said that aerospace-grade high-temperature-resistant materials and custom module capacity will be supplied driven by market competition once commercial demand is clear—rather than building the industrial chain first and waiting for demand later.

Facing the boom, we need to return to rationality, reconstruct technical priorities, and adjust the pace of industrial development.

Liang Shuang said: “First, technical priorities need to be reconstructed: space photovoltaics should abandon ‘lab-efficiency worship,’ with pragmatism at the core. Prioritize solving issues of reliability, environmental adaptation, and in-orbit lifetime; efficiency is only an auxiliary metric. Second, the routes should be differentiated: HJT should focus on terrestrial scenarios, PERC should maintain its mainstream position in space, perovskite should move toward space-dedicated R&D. The three should do their respective parts to avoid blind competition across scenarios. Third, the pace of industrial development should slow down: photovoltaic companies should make rational plans, treating space photovoltaics as a long-term technology reserve of more than 10 years, not as a short-term earnings growth point.”

He concluded by emphasizing: “In the boom of space photovoltaics, only by returning to engineering fundamentals and industrial rules, and by discarding financialized hype and one-sided public opinion guidance, can this technology truly move toward practical use rather than staying trapped in science fiction and capital stories.”

(Editor-in-charge: Zhang Yang HN080)

     【Disclaimer】This article only represents the author’s own views and is not related to Hexun.com. The information on the website of Huxun maintains neutrality regarding the statements and judgments made in the article, and provides no explicit or implicit guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the content included. Readers are advised to use this information only as a reference and bear all responsibility themselves. Email: news_center@staff.hexun.com