According to an analysis by China Merchants Securities, conventional string welding methods present significant challenges for photovoltaic cells in space applications, where extreme weight reduction and flexibility are paramount. The use of ultra-thin silicon wafers makes them highly fragile. The high-temperature welding process and mechanical stress from ribbons in standard string welding can easily cause wafer cracking. Furthermore, the significant difference in thermal expansion coefficients between silicon and the ribbon increases the probability of solder joint failure under the extreme temperature variations encountered in orbit. Consequently, conventional interconnection methods face considerable hurdles for use in the space environment.

The shingled module approach is expected to see wider adoption. This structure utilizes a flexible connection between wafers with fewer solder points, effectively distributing mechanical stress and reducing the risk of micro-cracks. Shingled welding employs conductive adhesive that cures at low temperatures, posing a lower risk of damage to the cells. Additionally, the shingled design allows for zero spacing between cells and eliminates ribbon shading, increasing the effective power-generating area and enhancing efficiency for a given solar array size. In the context of space applications, the advantages of shingled modules—higher power density per unit area and superior mechanical stability—are amplified, suggesting strong potential for widespread use in space photovoltaics.

The shingled structure has a reliable precedent in space photovoltaics, demonstrated as early as the 1971 launch of China's Shijian-1 satellite. Its solar panels incorporated a domestically designed "corrugated" structure, representing one of the earliest composite designs combining shingled and flat-panel technologies. This provides empirical evidence for the reliability of shingled technology in space power applications.

Companies that may benefit from these developments include ST Jingji, Duke Energy Co., Ltd., Debon Technology, Poly Materials, and Autowell Co., Ltd. Potential risks involve slower-than-expected technological adoption, weaker-than-anticipated downstream demand, escalating trade barriers, and intellectual property challenges.