For most, satellite connectivity means ensuring that people everywhere have access to telecommunications, data and the internet. Connecting this way is a noble goal, and innovators are finding new approaches to connect the world’s poorest and most remote regions through low-cost satellites in high orbits.
In recent years, however, a new group of innovators has emerged. They have a different connectivity goal: connecting everything, everywhere, to energy. They are re-examining the old idea of space-based solar power (SBSP) to see if new technologies and approaches can realize the elusive promise of bringing baseload power to any location on Earth, night or day. If any succeed, their impact could be revolutionary.
While SBSP has for decades been considered technologically infeasible and too costly to pursue, this generation of space entrepreneurs, with new technology and new business models, are rethinking SBSP from the ground up. By focusing on feasibility, they aim to show meaningful results, from space, within just a couple of years. To ensure U.S. leadership in this new area, Congress and the Trump administration should streamline regulations, create ways for agencies to buy SBSP as a commodity and support continued research and development that complements what these new companies are doing.
A history of space-based solar power
Isaac Asimov first suggested SBSP in a 1941 short story. Peter Glaser described the concept formally in a Science paper in 1968. In the 1970s, Glaser and others studied methods of transmitting power using microwaves, but they required kilometer-sized structures in space and much larger receivers on Earth. The launch costs for such colossal structures were prohibitive. In his 1977 book “The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space,” Gerard O’Neill proposed building the structures using lunar materials launched into orbit. In the 1990s, David Criswell proposed building on the lunar surface itself. Neither concept proved feasible. NASA and the Department of Energy examined SBSP from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, concluding that the underlying technology merited exploration but was not ripe for development.
Today’s commercial space age is characterized by radical new technologies. For example, until a few years ago, reusable rockets were thought to be an impossible pipe dream. Now, reusable rockets are commonplace. Advances in materials science, and computing helped make this possible, but so did new ways of thinking about the problem. The first wave of commercial space entrepreneurs tackled not only the technology but also the economics of space.
Microwave power transmission was an interesting concept, but it proved totally unworkable over the decades. The new cohort of SBSP companies is trying different approaches, such as using infrared lasers or concentrated sunlight to beam power to solar panels. Building on their previous experience, whether in space or in other fields, they are seeking familiar pathways to success. This includes starting with a minimum viable product.
For microwave systems, the minimum viable product requires an enormous antenna to be built in space. No smaller version can be built and deployed because it simply will not work at a lesser scale. So SBSP entrepreneurs have looked to other technologies that can be tested more cheaply and efficiently.
One example is Aetherflux’s plan to conduct a proof of concept test involving just one relatively small satellite in low Earth orbit and a single receiver on the ground or in space, eventually leading to a constellation of satellites beaming power via infrared laser. These technologies may create other problems that microwave systems would avoid, but none of those problems are as insurmountable as having to build a kilometer-scale space antenna just to test a product.
SBSP entrepreneurs hope to eventually be able to compete with terrestrial power on price. It will be years before they can do that everywhere, but it will not take as long for them to compete effectively in areas that are hard to reach, have lost infrastructure due to disaster or are in combat zones. In these cases, SBSP could rapidly become the best option.
Pursuing space-based solar power is worth it
In 2011, the United States military estimated that its fully burdened cost of fuel in Afghanistan was as high as $400 a gallon, and that one of every 24 ground resupply convoys endured a casualty. As soldiers become more reliant on electricity for computing, communications and sensing, the importance of a steady supply of electrical power increases. Containerized or soldier-portable solar panels receiving safe but powerful beams of energy from space could provide a cost-effective solution at much lower risk. An added benefit: all of the advanced technology will be in space. The solar panels on the ground could be purchased at a home improvement store, and it would be an inconsequential loss if they fell into enemy hands.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has made no secret of his interest in “reunifying” with Taiwan in the next couple of years. To succeed, he needs to prevent the U.S. military from operating near Taiwan for a few weeks. Disrupting the ability to project power across the Pacific means keeping the U.S. from moving troops and materiel within striking distance. It means cutting supply chains and forcing the U.S. military to recreate the costly, time-consuming island-hopping strategy of World War II.
Space-based solar power is part of the solution. It will enable deployed forces simply to unfold solar panels and immediately begin receiving electrical power from space. SBSP could also be used to provide electrical power to ships at sea, long endurance loitering aircraft in flight and covert platforms. SBSP can also help bring electricity back to disaster-stricken areas where the power grid has been destroyed.
Meanwhile, other companies are focusing on space-to-space solar power, which could beam energy to power-hungry spacecraft, perhaps allowing them to make better use of smaller solar panels, freeing up more capacity for payloads. While companies like Aetherflux pursue space-to-ground solar power, other companies like Star Catcher are focusing on space-to-space solar power, addressing one of the primary constraints on a satellite’s performance: the ability to generate electricity. This is especially true for satellites with power-hungry payloads such as synthetic aperture radars, which frequently have duty cycles below 35% to allow sufficient time for charging. To address this problem, satellites can launch with more solar panels, which is expensive and crowds out payload. SBSP provides an alternative: directing more energy to the satellite’s solar panels using a beam from an energy-collecting satellite nearby — a process that generates considerably more energy per square foot of panel, allowing satellites to carry less.
Other companies view SBSP as a possible way to maintain operations on the moon during the two-week lunar night. A steady beam of energy from orbit could keep landers, rovers and habitats going even when the temperature drops below -200 degrees Fahrenheit. China is already pursuing this idea, exploring ways to use lasers to power its lunar missions, including potentially its crewed International Lunar Research Station.
Innovative American companies have put the U.S. in the lead for SBSP. Congress and the Trump administration can help expand this lead by providing clear regulatory pathways, such as making the Office of Space Commerce in the Commerce Department a one-stop shop for approving on-orbit activity. The Department of Defense, NASA and other agencies can announce plans to buy SBSP as a commodity. And research focused on developing fieldable systems should continue, in conjunction with private-sector partners. Finally, President Trump should incorporate the technology into his “all-of-the-above” approach to American energy. After all, it’s hard to get more “above” than space-based solar power.
Paul Stimers is an attorney at law firm Holland & Knight, where he leads the space policy practice, and lobbies for some of the firms in this sector, including Aetherflux. His views are his own and not necessarily those of Holland & Knight or its clients.
SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these op-eds are solely those of the authors.
This article first appeared in the April 2025 issue of SpaceNews Magazine.
