"Space Solar Requires 1,000 Times Less Critical Minerals Than Wind, Solar, and Batteries": Martin Soltau, Co-CEO of Space Solar, on £30/MWh Orbital Energy, Why China's Critical Mineral Dominance Extends to Orbit, and Energy Sovereignty From Space

Here's what nobody tells you about the energy transition: the solutions don't exist yet. The UK has the highest energy costs in the developed world. Four times what Americans pay. They've been de-industrializing for years, testing to destruction the theory that wind and solar are cheap. The public knows better.

Martin Soltau, Co-CEO of Space Solar, spent decades in aerospace working on tactical reconnaissance and leading major aircraft equipment programs. Then a friend asked for help with a business case for single stage to orbit spaceplanes (SSTO), for which the future market might be the huge capacity required to put large solar power satellites in orbit. Soltau started digging. What he found changed everything.

Reusable rockets were bringing space launch costs down massively. The technologies required for  space-based solar power were becoming mature. And critically, the energy transition lacked real solutions. So Soltau took the idea to the UK government. They commissioned an independent techno-economic assessment. The results: space-based solar power could be the cheapest form of energy, deployable within net zero timeframes.

Soltau and colleague Sam Adlen founded the Space Energy Initiative, bringing together nearly 100 organizations across the energy and space sectors. The government found £10 million for initial R&D programs and signposted space-based solar power in the National Space Strategy. Then Martin and Sam founded Space Solar to lead the commercial development.

Now Soltau is advocating at ministerial level while building systems that could power civilization from orbit. Because the energy crisis isn't theoretical anymore.

You've gone from tactical reconnaissance to guided weapons to renewable energy from space. What connects these domains, and what made you bet your career on space-based solar power now?

"I've spent my career in aerospace and space," Soltau begins. "I did a year in the space sector in the USA early on. It's always been a passion." He'd always known about space-based solar power, but dismissed it as futuristic, sci-fi, a bit out there. Then several things came together. "These things often happen from chance conversations, which is exactly what happened here."

A friend was developing a single-stage-to-orbit space plane. He claimed the market was space-based solar power. "After I finished giving him a hard time about developing something ambitious for a market that didn't exist, I felt I should help him out."

But the real catalyst came from his colleagues. "My colleagues at Frazer-Nash, where I was leading the aerospace business, made me realize just how insanely difficult the energy transition (the net zero transition) is going to be. We don't have the technologies yet."

The intermittency problem remains unsolved. Wind and solar only generate when conditions allow, requiring massive energy storage systems or fossil fuel backup that nobody wants to discuss in polite company. Battery technology has improved, but nowhere near enough to store grid-scale power for days when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. 

The third factor was reusable launch bringing down costs massively. "There was a possibility that space-based solar power might actually be economically viable." SpaceX's Falcon 9 brought launch costs from roughly $10,000 per kilogram down to around $2,500. Starship promises to drop that to potentially $100 per kilogram. At those prices, launching thousands of tons of solar satellite infrastructure into orbit stops being science fiction and starts being economically feasible.

So he started digging, initially to help his friend generate market pull for the reusable spaceplane. "Then I realized through my research that space-based solar power had moved on tremendously from where I thought it was." The timeline moved quickly. "I took this to the government. Found a physics-friendly director in the Energy Department, got him excited, and we persuaded the government to commission an independent study on space-based solar power."

They had to compete. They bid competitively. Won. Delivered the study with a team of engineers and economists. "The results blew us away. Particularly the economics. This could be the cheapest form of energy. It could be developed and commercialized in time to make a difference for net zero timeframes. It's technically viable. We knew that. But economically viable? That was the exciting discovery."

The economic benefits extended beyond just cheap power. "It could have huge economic benefits for the UK and other nations that pursue it." That's when Soltau decided this couldn't just be another government study gathering dust. "We've all done studies for the government that go nowhere. I thought this was too important to let go." The first blocker was organizational. "It's fundamentally an energy technology, but with this big space component. The energy sector doesn't know anything about space. We needed to bring the energy and space sectors together."

Enter the Space Energy Initiative. Soltau and Sam Adlen created what he calls "a coalition of the willing." Nearly 100 members now. Major companies, organizations, leading universities, and government involvement. All working to advocate and promote understanding of space-based solar power as a deliverable energy technology.

The initiative had a real impact. "The government found £10 million down the back of the sofa. They launched R&D programs. They backed a European Space Agency program called Solaris, and they put space-based solar power into the National Space Strategy."

But Soltau and Adlen felt the technology was mature enough for commercial development. "So we founded Space Solar to lead the development program, with strong support from the UK community of companies we'd pulled together, and the government."

Space Solar claims to deliver clean energy from orbit. Walk us through the real economics. What's the cost per kilowatt hour delivered to Earth, and how does that compete with terrestrial renewables plus storage? Where are the hidden costs people miss?

"Looking at the UK energy market, which I know best," Soltau begins, setting up the comparison. "Nuclear costs about £125 per megawatt hour." The numbers for renewables surprise people. "Offshore wind and solar are actually more expensive than you might think. They're about £100 a megawatt hour. But then you need to add big costs to make the energy system reliable with intermittent weather-dependent renewables." Those additional costs change everything. "Their true cost is closer to £150 a megawatt hour because you need duplicated backup sources of base load, overbuilding  capacity, and various market subsidies to make it viable."

The hidden costs of intermittent power are substantial. You need grid-scale storage, backup gas peaker plants that sit idle most of the time, overbuilt wind and solar capacity because you need between 3 x (wind) and 10 x (solar) as much generation nameplate capacity as you actually use, and massive expansion of the grid transmission system to connect it all up. Someone has to pay for all that infrastructure, and that all goes on energy bills.

Space-based solar power transforms the equation. The economics work because a solar panel in space generates 13 times the amount of energy than the same panel on Earth, as there is no night, weather, or atmosphere in space.  Using microwave RF power beaming makes the system truly all-weather, so the utilisation is near 100%.    "With space solar technology, we can achieve less than £30 a megawatt hour for base load and dispatchable power, and less than £10 / MWh if launch costs come down substantially." Base load matters critically. "Base load is really important. It's the underpinning reliability. 24/7, all weather power that we need for our modern civilization." Base load power is what keeps hospitals running at 3 AM when there's no wind. What keeps data centers from crashing. What makes modern life possible. Nuclear and coal provided it for decades. Renewables can't without massive storage, which is not yet a technology that exists.

Dispatchability adds another layer of value. "Dispatchability means the ability to modulate power, to balance supply and demand. That's critical to the grid. A failure of that balancing led to the blackout in Spain earlier this year where people died, and that was in incredibly benign weather conditions."

Then there's the third capability. "Space solar power can export wirelessly. If you don't need energy at one location, you can instantaneously switch the beam and export it. You get really high utilization and tremendous utility." The value proposition becomes clear. "It's not only very affordable and competitive. It's also very high value as an energy technology."

Think about what Soltau just described. Not £150 per megawatt hour for unreliable power that stops when the weather doesn't cooperate. £30 per megawatt hour for power you can dispatch on demand, export instantly to wherever needs it, and run 24/7 regardless of weather. The economics aren't incremental. They're transformational.

China announced a 2MW space solar demonstration by 2030 and gigawatt stations by 2050. The US and Europe are still doing studies. If China controls space-based energy infrastructure first, what leverage does that give them over nations dependent on their power?

"Resources, particularly energy, are really important soft power influence," Soltau says immediately. "They drive the quality of life and way of life for nations and peoples. Wars are fought over energy and resources. They're fundamentally at the heart of most conflicts. The ability to beam power anywhere is a really important soft power capability. It's also a strategic critical national infrastructure with a major component in space, making it very strategic for multiple reasons."

Soltau sees the pattern clearly. "The West and our natural partners around the world need to see what China is doing. China has always had the ability to execute very long-term, well-thought-through policies and strategies." He cites examples. "Their Belt and Road strategy and critical mineral strategy are two examples of incredible long-term strategic thinking, which obviously they're better positioned to execute with their form of government. Space-based solar power is another really important example."

Belt and Road has given China leverage over 150 countries through infrastructure investments. Ports, railways, power plants built with Chinese financing, creating dependencies that translate into political influence. Now imagine that same playbook applied to orbital energy infrastructure. The personal connection adds credibility. "I know the Chinese space solar power team reasonably well."

Soltau paints two futures. In the benign scenario, you could see competitive markets in orbital energy. "These systems comprise large satellites, each typically generating 500 to 1000 megawatts of net power. That's a very large power station providing electricity for one to two million homes." For context, Hinkley Point C, the UK's newest nuclear plant, will generate 3,200 megawatts when complete. A single space solar satellite would provide roughly a third of that capacity. But unlike nuclear, you can deploy them far faster and don't need two decades of planning and construction.

The technical setup: "They're in geosynchronous orbit, beaming power to ground-based receivers that can be dotted all over the world. Those receivers, to the energy system, just look like gas-fired power stations providing 24/7 all-weather power on demand." Geosynchronous orbit sits at 35,786 kilometers above the equator. Satellites there orbit at the same rate Earth rotates, appearing stationary relative to the ground. Perfect for beaming power to fixed receivers.

The market structure could enable resilience. "We could have satellite operators and ground stations with interoperability standards. If you're a city mayor in Asia or Africa with some of these receivers, you can receive and buy power from whoever will sell it to you at the right price." That's the optimistic vision. "In a benign world, we envision a competitive, vibrant market in space-based solar power providing resilience, reliability, very affordable cost, democratising energy for all and becoming the dominant source of power for the world."

But there's another scenario. "In a less benign world, you could imagine a strong first-mover advantage. China taking the lead and having a very dominant soft power play with captive client nations being dependent on this. Selling cheap power to nations in return for influence." The Belt and Road playbook, applied to orbital energy infrastructure. China already controls critical mineral processing. Already has client states dependent on their infrastructure investments. Add orbital energy to that toolkit and the leverage multiplies.

From your aerospace background, you know how programs die. What technical show-stopper could kill space solar? Is it the power beaming efficiency, structural mass, or something else? What keeps you up at night about the engineering?

"One of the key technologies is power beaming, which is well established and understood, going right back to the '70s," Soltau explains. "We've demonstrated power beaming at the right efficiencies and at significant scale and distance." He cites a landmark experiment. "NASA did a famous experiment in 1975 using the Goldstone deep space network transmitter. They sent about 34 kilowatts over about a mile at pretty much the right efficiencies. That's 50 years ago." The Goldstone experiment demonstrated wireless power transmission at distances and efficiencies that made space solar viable. Scientists transmitted 30 kilowatts of power with 82% efficiency, proving the physics worked at scale. That was with 1975 technology.

The technology has only improved. "Since then, we've got much more efficient solid-state power converters and RF power amplifiers. We can miniaturize everything and make it much lighter." The second critical technology is in-space assembly. "These systems are quite large. You need a large aperture in space. The satellites are too large to send up in a single rocket launch, even the Starship class. So they need to be assembled in space."

A satellite generating 1,000 megawatts needs a transmitting aperture roughly a kilometer across. You can't fold that into any rocket fairing. In-space assembly becomes mandatory, not optional. But again, the capability exists. "This is technology we know how to do. We assemble things routinely and robotically in other sectors. We do very complex robotic manipulation, assembly, inspection, maintenance, and repair." 

So what's the real risk? "The technical risk is more about engineering the economics of space-based solar power. It all comes down to: can you do this in a lightweight system?" Mass drives everything. "If you can get the mass of the solar power satellite down (or more particularly, the specific power, meaning the amount of power you get out divided by the mass of the system), that really drives down the capex cost."

Specific power, measured in watts per kilogram, determines launch costs. Double the specific power and you halve the mass you need to launch. That directly cuts your biggest expense. The numbers tell the story. "At today's launch costs, the capex contribution of launch for our system is about 70%. Launch is a very dominant part of the capex. Minimizing mass is all-important."

Soltau addresses a common concern. "People worry about efficiency a lot, but it's only one aspect of the system. When energy from the sun is free, efficiency just drives the size of the system and therefore the capex. It doesn't affect operating costs so much because your energy is free."

Utilization matters more than efficiency. "The more important thing is utilization, which is pretty much 100% for a satellite in GEO." There's a favorable scaling law at work. "If you're developing a phased array, which these things are, the larger you make the aperture, the narrower the beam, and you can make the side lobes smaller and smaller. The main beam has almost all the power in it." The physics works in your favor at scale. "With a satellite in geosynchronous orbit at 36,000 kilometers, you need a large transmitting aperture to get that very narrow beam so you can capture it with an economically sized rectenna on the ground."

Before we talk about the critical minerals angle—because there's a major geopolitical dimension here—can you explain the strategic importance of energy sovereignty in this context?

Soltau jumps directly to the problem most people ignore. "The problem with intermittent renewables (wind, solar, batteries in particular) is that their energy density is very low indeed. Two to three orders of magnitude less than a gas or coal-fired power station. Far less than nuclear." But the real challenge goes deeper. "They don't just use simple materials like steel and iron that are readily available. They use rare earths and critical minerals that have very low ore grades. For every kilogram of neodymium, cobalt, or lithium, you have to dig up a ton of material."

The scale of mining required becomes staggering. "The mining requirements for critical minerals are huge. We would need to increase mining by between 20 and 70 times what we do today, depending on the mineral. That's a 2,000% to 7,000% increase." And mining carries its own costs. "Mining itself is a very dirty, environmentally damaging, energy-intensive activity. Most of that mining is done in countries not well aligned with Western nations."

China dominates the refining. "It's refined almost exclusively in China, because they're the country prepared to do this extremely environmentally damaging process. The US and Western nations have been happy to let China do that because we don't want those environmentally damaging processes in our own countries." China controls 60% of global rare earth production and processes 90% of rare earths globally. They didn't acquire this dominance through geology. They acquired it by accepting the environmental costs Western nations wouldn't.

The self-deception is obvious. "We wash our hands of it. We think we're being green, but we're just exporting the problem." The strategic implications are severe. "China has a huge hold on critical minerals that are essential for our future energy. They've got a really strategic hold on critical resources." And then there's the environmental hypocrisy. "If we're worried about the environmental impact of hydrocarbons, we're just creating another environmental challenge by ramping up mining so much."

Lithium extraction requires 500,000 gallons of water per ton of lithium. Cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo uses child labor in dangerous conditions. The "green" transition has a dirty secret: it just shifts the environmental damage to places we don't see. The contrast with space-based solar power is stark. "Space-based solar power uses about three orders of magnitude (about 1,000 times less) critical minerals, and therefore less mining and refining, than wind, solar, and batteries."

Soltau sees this as solving multiple problems simultaneously. "It's an answer to that strategic geopolitical challenge of China's dominance in critical minerals and mining and refining, but also to the environmental impact of mining." Energy sovereignty means not depending on adversarial nations for the materials that power your civilization. Space-based solar power delivers that sovereignty without just shifting the environmental damage somewhere you can't see it.

You're advocating at ministerial level for UK investment. But Starlink showed how quickly one company can dominate orbital infrastructure. Should nations treat space solar as critical infrastructure requiring sovereign control, or let the market decide winners?

"It needs to be a commercial market-driven system, just like any other energy technology," Soltau says firmly. "But it needs strong regulation by the government so it's developed sustainably and responsibly." The scale demands careful oversight. "Particularly when thinking about a lot of very large satellites in space. There are existing regulations already. Much of this can be dealt with in today's regulation processes."

But new frameworks will be necessary. "There will need to be some new regulation as space-based solar power progressively becomes demonstrated. As more nations pursue it and it becomes generally recognized that this will be a commercial reality within a very few years."

Regulators need to plan now. "The space and energy regulators need to be planning for this. Particularly, assembling large structures in space has to be done responsibly to avoid generating debris." The development process naturally involves regulatory engagement. "This would happen naturally as part of the development program. We're going to need launch licenses and orbital slots for these systems. Regulators need to be confident that we can build, commission, operate these systems and then decommission them responsibly at end of life. That it's sustainable."

Space Solar has been proactive. "We've been doing a lot of work with the regulators in the UK (the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK Space Agency, Ofcom our spectrum regulator, and Department for Transport), to start mapping out the pathway and roadmap for these regulations." The response has been enthusiastic. "They're super engaged, really excited to be working on such a transformative technology and opportunity."

Defense and security add another layer. "These are very strategic, critical national infrastructure. There's strong interest from defense and security about the systems. Defense would have to protect them. They'll need to be involved in making sure vulnerabilities are managed, both cyber security and physical security." Soltau's team has thought through the security implications. "We've put quite a lot of thought into that, as have others. These systems have some quite nice characteristics that mean they naturally have really good resilience."

But government-led development would be unhelpful. "If governments decided to launch a multinational program to develop space-based solar power and it was all government-led, it would be unbelievably expensive. It would take decades." His position is clear. "I'm a firm believer in free enterprise and commercial markets driving technology. Government should step out of the way as much as possible, but provide strong market encouragement and regulation." The model works. Private companies drive innovation and efficiency. The government ensures safety, sustainability, and security. Neither can do the other's job well, but together they can build infrastructure that powers civilization.

Your initiative talks about partner nations for space solar development. Given the dual-use potential of power beaming technology for directed energy weapons, how do you balance international cooperation with security concerns?

Soltau distinguishes between two different approaches to space-based solar power. "There are some companies, mainly in the US, developing laser-based systems. These typically are in low Earth orbit, relatively small systems that can be launched on a single space launch. They use IR laser frequencies to beam energy down."

Lasers have advantages. "The advantage is that laser based systems can be  very small, with low diffraction, so you end up with quite small ground receivers. Obviously that's got some logistic advantage." But they come with severe drawbacks. "The drawback with lasers is that they're clearly a pretty potent weapon if the energy density is high enough, which it tends to be. They have health and safety challenges, at minimum, eyesight issues. You'd need keep-out zones for aviation, other spacecraft, and protecting life and ecosystems on Earth. So you've got very challenging safety issues."

The applications are limited. "There's potentially some good applications for tactical defense uses. But they're only really small-scale systems. Perhaps up to 100 kilowatts." Scaling laser systems faces fundamental barriers. "Unless there was some massive breakthrough in laser technology, the low efficiencies, weather dependency, small scale, and difficulty of ganging up lasers to deliver city scale power is really difficult."

That makes laser systems primarily a government concern. "Because of the weaponization potential, that's more of a government thing." Space Solar took a different path. "Space Solar uses microwaves for three reasons. First, it's safe."The safety case is straightforward. "You can readily develop a safety case because the power density is low. It's compatible with aviation. Civil and military aircraft are certified to handle what they call high intensity radiation fields. Even at the peak of our beam, it's less than that certification. They can fly through the middle of the beam."

Ground safety is equally robust. "On the ground, at the edge of the rectenna, the microwave level is already below the limit for indefinite public exposure. This is well demonstrated. There are regulations and guidelines around microwaves." A rectenna (rectifying antenna) converts microwave energy back into electricity. Think of it as solar panels, but for microwaves instead of light. The technology dates to the 1960s and is well understood. "The third reason we use it is its mature technology. You can go buy chipsets today that convert electricity to microwaves at very high efficiency (80-85%), which is what we need for the economics to work."

Gallium nitride (GaN) power amplifiers achieve these efficiencies commercially today. Space Solar doesn't need to invent new physics, just apply existing components at scale. The physics prevents weaponization by design. "From a whole system perspective, we try to focus the energy as hard as we can. We have this big, kilometer-scale satellite in geosynchronous orbit, and we try as hard as we can to focus that energy."

But there are physical limits. "Because of diffraction physics, you design to a peak power of typically 230 watts per square meter. You can't get any more than that for a given size of system. So you can't weaponize it. It's just physically impossible." The dual-use applications are different. "From the dual-use perspective, it's about using power beaming in other applications. For example, powering long-endurance surveillance drones and blimps, providing power wirelessly from space to remote forward operating bases for the military. Those are dual-use applications, rather than space weapons."

Having worked on military reconnaissance and now civilian power infrastructure, you understand both domains. If space solar arrays can beam gigawatts to Earth, what stops them from being weaponized? How do we prevent an energy system from becoming a weapon system?

"The way it could potentially happen is not through damaging systems," Soltau explains. "The beam intensity isn't high enough for that. As we discussed, it's not possible to focus it any more for a given design. You could imagine it being a space radar. So there are military applications, but I don't think it's weaponizable."

The flip side matters more. "How do you keep adversaries from hijacking the power or disrupting it? Here we've got a very neat system." Soltau describes the architecture. "Our systems comprise the solar power satellite beaming energy down. On the ground, you've got the rectenna that receives the power and turns it into electricity that's fed into the grid." The control mechanism is elegant. "It's controlled through a retro-directive pilot beam. This is a small beam sent up from the receiver to the operating satellite. It provides a phase reference that steers the beam very precisely back down onto the receiver on Earth."

Retro-directive arrays automatically steer transmitted power back toward the source of an incoming signal. The satellite doesn't decide where to point the beam. The ground receiver tells it where to aim through the pilot signal. Without that pilot beam providing the phase reference, the satellite can't focus power anywhere. The security is built into the system design. "That provides precision pointing, and it also encodes the cyber security protocols. So you've got, integral to the design, a really secure way of avoiding disruption or power being stolen."

Think about what this means. You can't hijack the beam because the beam only goes where the ground station tells it to go. You can't point it at something else because the system won't allow it. You can't intercept the power because you'd need to replicate the exact phase reference and security protocols. The weaponization concern gets raised constantly in public dialogue. "People quickly ask: will this fry birds? But you quickly understand why that's not possible. That's an easy one to address."

Soltau has done extensive public outreach. "The Royal Society here in the UK has done quite good work with structured public outreach. It was universally, really strongly supported by the public." The reason is economic pain. "Here in the UK, we've got the highest energy costs anywhere in the developed world, four times the cost of energy in the US. We've been steadily de-industrializing for obvious reasons. It's a disaster. And people get that."

The public understands the problem. "The UK has tested to destruction this theory that wind and solar are cheap. It's just not true, and the public generally understands that very well." In structured public dialogue with 120 randomly chosen members of the UK public, the response was clear. "Once we'd explained why it's safe, and that these receivers would be offshore (very low impact compared to wind turbines and solar arrays) there was a really positive response from the public."

The main question wasn't about weaponization. "The main thing you get from the public is: is it really feasible?" And that's the question Soltau is answering with hardware, not presentations.

Looking ahead, where do you see space solar capabilities in the next 5, 10, 15 years? What are you most excited about? What worries you?

"I'm really excited," Soltau begins, and the energy is genuine. "Space Solar was founded four years ago. We've done about £7 million worth of engineering work." The technical advantage is substantial. "We've got a market-leading design for our solar power satellite, our CASSIOPeiA system. It's got a 3x advantage in specific power, economics, and performance over other systems because of its unique ability to steer the beam electronically through 360 degrees without requiring large mechanically driven rotating arrays or reflectors."

The technical challenge is fundamental. "If you want to beam power continuously, you've got to always harvest solar energy from the sun as the satellite orbits. At the same time, you've got to steer the beam onto that point on the ground. So you need some sort of rotating joint between the collector and transmitter." Most space solar designs use mechanical rotating joints, adding mass and complexity. Mechanical systems in space face wear, lubrication challenges, and potential failure points. Electronic beam steering eliminates moving parts entirely.

Space Solar's solution is elegant. "We do that electronically by steering the beam electronically just like a phased array, but through 360 degrees. We've tested this in hardware very successfully." The £7 million has delivered results. "We've really de-risked and developed a very mature system design. We've got great partnerships and a plan to commission a pilot plant in orbit within five years."

The pathway to commercial viability is mapped. "Within six years, we'll have our first minimum viable product, a stepping stone with a smaller system in low Earth orbit, launched by a single rocket and providing power to a client of ours. We're working very closely with a client for whom energy at quite a high cost works well. It's not very economical in low Earth orbit generally, but it works really well for them."

That minimum viable product accomplishes three things. "It demonstrates and de-risks all the technology. It provides a real-world operating system with a client (a commercial revenue-generating model), so other energy clients can get confidence. They can test the system. We can set up rectenna test sites around the world and show them what the operating characteristics are like." And it solves the finance problem. "Third, it provides the finance community (infrastructure finance), with confidence about financing this as a new asset class."

Soltau has cracked the chicken-and-egg problem that has always killed space-based solar power. "We've really unlocked the challenge that has historically been that the first system always had to be a huge system in geostationary orbit to make it useful. Therefore, billions of dollars, and there's no way you can get finance for an experimental prototype costing billions. You've got to have staged stepping stones. We think we've unlocked that with this combination of clever technology and this roadmap with a key client."

After the minimum viable product, scaling becomes straightforward. "We're then building out more of the same—more modules putting them together. But instead of low Earth orbit, it's in geosynchronous orbit. The first large system, about 100 megawatts, provides economic power."

Three factors dominate economics. "First, the cost of launch. Second, the performance—the specific power, meaning the amount of power out of the rectenna divided by the mass of the system. And third, the cost of capital." Building a track record reduces capital costs. "Bringing down the cost of capital is about getting the finance community confident through building up a track record of operations."

The timeline is aggressive but realistic. "We firmly believe that space solar power will be scaling out substantially within a decade, by 2035." The modularity enables rapid deployment. "Because it's hyper-modular—these coffee-table-size modules are built in gigafactories and then launched with the capacity that SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others are planning. These can be built and commissioned really rapidly." Gigafactories pioneered by Tesla demonstrate how manufacturing scale drives costs down. Apply that model to space solar modules and you get mass production that makes orbital infrastructure economically viable. Each module identical, tested, ready for launch and robotic assembly.

The societal implications excite Soltau most. "From a societal point of view, I'm so excited because this can really democratize access to affordable, abundant energy, particularly for developing nations. I think it's a real force for stability in the world. It means nations are, for the first time perhaps, not dependent on the fortune of geology for minerals, or on perhaps not very friendly countries for their energy and resources." The model is simple. "They can just build a rectenna and receive reliable energy from the market, or build their own systems and have sovereign control of their energy."

For the space sector, the implications are equally transformative. "The next big economic revolution in space is the ability to build large structures in space routinely, repeatedly, safely, and sustainably." Others see this too. "Eric Schmidt (former CEO of Google) and others are talking about in-space data centers where you've got continuous 24/7 energy and no problem with grid connections. Those are large systems that need to be assembled in space. Similarly, manufacturing in space, habitats, and then energy for the moon, and mining and refining resources and operations on the moon."

But the path to those capabilities doesn't require massive government investment. "The stepping stone to all that is not huge government investment in science projects. It's the market-driven solution, using the energy market (which is two and a half trillion dollars a year), to fund and develop this capability, and then pay for the wider capability. I really see space-based solar power as an absolutely key stepping stone to the next transformative steps for humanity in developing our space capabilities."

Author's Analysis

Picture two scenarios for 2040. In the first, China operates 50 gigawatts of orbital solar capacity. Pakistan, Kenya, Argentina, and a dozen other nations buy power beamed from Chinese satellites. When Pakistan considers aligning with Western interests on Taiwan, their energy prices mysteriously spike. When Kenya votes the wrong way at the UN, their power gets "reallocated" to other customers during peak hours. The Belt and Road playbook that worked with ports and railways now works with something civilization needs more: 24/7 power that can't be replaced overnight. That dependency is leverage. And unlike shipping lanes you can blockade or pipelines you can sabotage, orbital infrastructure operates beyond anyone's territorial control.

In the second scenario, the UK, US, Japan, and allied nations deploy competing orbital infrastructure starting in 2030. The market Soltau describes emerges: cities buy power from whoever offers the best price, energy becomes abundant enough that access stops being a geopolitical weapon, and developing nations gain sovereignty through rectenna construction instead of resource lottery. But this scenario requires Western governments to recognize that China is already building hardware while we're still commissioning studies. The strategic window closes when China achieves first-mover dominance, captures client states, and establishes the technical standards that everyone else must follow. You can't compete with orbital infrastructure if you're five years late launching it.

The commercialization pathway Soltau designed solves the problem that killed every previous attempt: you don't need billion-dollar government commitments before proving the technology works. His client that accepts higher costs for low-Earth-orbit power creates the minimum viable product that demonstrates capabilities, generates revenue, and builds a track record. Then finance follows. Then scaling to geosynchronous orbit with economic power delivery. The genius is staging that de-risks each step instead of betting everything on a single massive system. But staging takes time, and China doesn't appear to be staging anything. They're targeting demonstrations by 2030 and gigawatt stations by 2050. If they compress that timeline the way they compressed EV deployment, 5G infrastructure, and high-speed rail buildout, the race is already over.

What keeps getting missed is that this determines who controls the infrastructure enabling the next phase of space development. Whoever masters in-space assembly at scale for solar satellites can build data centers, manufacturing facilities, fuel depots, and lunar operations. The two-and-a-half-trillion-dollar annual energy market funds developing capabilities that unlock everything else. China understands this. They've been playing long-term strategic games with Belt and Road and critical minerals while Western nations optimized quarterly earnings. The question isn't whether space-based solar power works. Soltau proved that. The question is whether democracies can move from PowerPoint to orbit before autocracies do. Because the first scenario isn't speculation. It's what happens when we're still doing studies while others build satellites.

About Martin Soltau

Martin Soltau is Co-CEO and Co-Founder of Space Solar, leading the commercial development of space-based solar power technology. With over three decades in aerospace and defense, he has worked on and led programs for tactical reconnaissance systems, major aircraft equipment and systems, , and advanced space systems. Prior to founding Space Solar, he served as Head of Aerospace at Frazer-Nash Consultancy, delivering support and solutions for  a range of international aerospace clients.

Soltau co-founded the Space Energy Initiative, a coalition of nearly 100 organizations across the Energy and Space sectors, including major companies, universities, and government bodies working to advance space-based solar power. His advocacy led to the UK government commissioning an independent techno-economic assessment of space-based solar power, which demonstrated the technology's economic viability and strategic importance.

He has worked extensively with UK government departments including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the UK Space Agency, and the Ministry of Defence. He speaks publicly on the energy transition and space infrastructure, advocating for market-driven development of space-based solar power supported by strong regulatory frameworks.

Soltau's work combines technical depth in aerospace engineering with strategic thinking on energy sovereignty and geopolitics. He focuses on solving the fundamental challenge that has historically prevented space-based solar power from commercializing: creating a staged development pathway that demonstrates technology, generates revenue, and builds investor confidence before requiring billion-dollar commitments.

For more information about Space Solar and orbital energy infrastructure, contact Martin Soltau directly at martin.soltau@spacesolar.co.uk