Concept and Feasibility of Heliocentric Artificial Planets for Scalable Power Generation and Autonomous Space Infrastructure

1. Introduction

Artificial satellites have progressed from single-purpose spacecraft into dense, networked infrastructures that support navigation, communications, Earth observation, scientific missions, and increasingly, real-time economic activity. Yet the scaling of such systems in Earth-centric orbits is not purely an engineering optimization problem; it is constrained by geometry and coupling in a bounded phase space. When tens of thousands of objects occupy similar altitude bands and inclinations, the system-wide effort required to maintain safety, spectrum compatibility, and operational continuity rises faster than the incremental capability delivered. Debris environment studies show that collision exposure grows nonlinearly and that collision-generated fragments can amplify risk in ways that are difficult to reverse once density passes a critical threshold [16,17,18,19]. This is especially relevant for large constellations where operational success depends on a reliable “traffic system” for orbit maintenance, conjunction assessment, and end-of-life disposal. The physical environment thus acts as a scaling governor: the more the orbit is populated, the more resources must be diverted to risk management rather than mission output.In parallel, global energy demand and the need for low-carbon power motivate renewed attention to space-based solar power (SBSP). The conceptual appeal of SBSP is straightforward: sunlight in space is abundant, predictable, and can be harvested above weather systems and aerosol variability. However, conventional SBSP proposals have typically concentrated on geostationary orbit (GEO) or cislunar regimes, which remain subject to eclipse seasons, station-keeping burdens, and regulatory congestion [1,2,3,4,5,6]. These constraints limit the achievable duty cycle and complicate the mass and thermal design, particularly when the aim is not kilowatt- or megawatt-class payload power but infrastructure-scale delivery. The key point is that Earth-centric placements couple power generation to the Earth–Sun geometry; therefore, even large collector areas cannot avoid eclipse-driven intermittency without substantial storage mass and reliability penalties.

This paper proposes a complementary and infrastructure-centric architecture: Heliocentric Artificial Planets (HAPs). A HAP is not a gravitationally bound world but a modular heliocentric hub that functions as a persistent energy source, communication and computation node, and autonomy coordinator for distributed satellite networks. The proposition is that moving infrastructure-scale functions away from Earth’s crowded orbital shells decouples growth in capability from growth in congestion. This is analogous to how terrestrial infrastructure evolved: when cities grew, power generation, logistics hubs, and backbone networks were re-architected rather than simply densified. Here, the heliocentric environment supplies near-continuous solar exposure and a comparatively low-traffic operational domain, enabling linear scaling in energy output with collector area while keeping collision exposure largely independent of expansion. The remainder of this work quantifies these claims with explicit scaling laws, numerical evaluations, and system-of-systems reasoning grounded in established aerospace engineering methods [12,20,24].

2. Structural Scaling Limits in Earth-Centric Orbits

The limitations of Earth-centric architectures become clearest when expressed as scaling relations. Consider an orbital shell containing N active spacecraft. A first-order model for expected collision exposure Pc is proportional to the number of interacting pairs, leading to Pc ∝ N²σv, where σ is an effective cross-sectional area and v is a characteristic relative velocity [16]. This relationship does not assert that collisions are inevitable, but it implies that the number of potentially hazardous conjunctions grows quadratically as density increases. Debris modeling and long-term environment studies corroborate that small perturbations in traffic or disposal compliance can substantially alter the growth of hazardous populations over decadal timescales [17,18,19]. Importantly, this quadratic trend is structural: it originates from the combinatorics of pairwise encounters within a bounded volume, not from any particular spacecraft technology.By contrast, many measures of delivered capability scale roughly linearly with satellite count. For example, increasing N can improve temporal coverage or aggregate throughput, but the marginal gain typically diminishes as coverage saturates or as network bottlenecks appear. Hence a divergence emerges: negative externalities scale ~N² while benefits scale ≤N. Operationally, this divergence shows up as escalating propellant consumption for avoidance maneuvers, increasing burden on space surveillance and tracking networks, and rising system complexity in scheduling and communications. Even with onboard autonomy, spacecraft remain embedded in the same physical density, so autonomy mainly shifts decision-making location rather than removing the coupling. The Kessler-type cascade mechanism further amplifies this concern: a single breakup event can create fragments that increase collision probability for many other objects, potentially producing a feedback process that is costly to arrest once initiated [16].Orbital congestion also has non-collision aspects. Spectrum allocation in crowded regimes becomes harder as systems proliferate; regulatory coordination and interference mitigation can impose schedule constraints and reduce effective capacity. Moreover, the presence of large numbers of satellites complicates mission assurance for high-value assets, including crewed vehicles and national critical infrastructure. These costs are not always internalized by individual operators, creating a collective-action dynamic that makes purely incremental solutions fragile. From an engineering standpoint, this suggests that Earth-centric orbits are approaching a regime where scaling is dominated by risk management rather than mission output.The HAP concept responds to this scaling mismatch by relocating infrastructure-scale functions (e.g., bulk energy generation, centralized processing, backbone relays) to a domain where increasing capability does not require increasing local traffic density. In heliocentric placement, expansion can be achieved by adding collector area or modules without requiring the same orbital shell to host more independent spacecraft. Thus, the scaling of collision exposure can be decoupled from the scaling of delivered infrastructure capacity. This does not eliminate the need for Earth-orbit satellites, but it reassigns their role to edge sensing/actuation while heavy infrastructure resides in a less congested domain. Subsequent sections quantify how this decoupling changes both energy and operations scaling.

3. Power Intermittency and Orbital Geometry Constraints

Power availability is an equally fundamental scaling constraint. Solar arrays deliver power proportional to incident irradiance and projected area, but Earth-centric orbits impose geometric interruptions that cannot be removed by engineering refinement alone. In LEO, eclipse periods occur every orbit for many inclinations, forcing spacecraft to rely on storage for a substantial fraction of time. In GEO, seasonal eclipse periods persist, and although they occupy a smaller fraction of the year, they create a deterministic requirement for storage and thermal management that scales with delivered power. For SBSP architectures, these eclipse constraints are more severe because the goal is continuous baseload-like delivery rather than intermittent supply. If a GEO SBSP platform aims to deliver gigawatt-class power, the storage required to bridge eclipse intervals becomes extremely large, adding mass, cost, and degradation-driven replacement risk. At the subsystem level, battery and power electronics lifetime can become the dominant driver of maintenance cycles, especially under radiation exposure and thermal cycling [28,29,30].

This geometric reality has motivated decades of SBSP studies exploring alternative placements and architectures. Early concepts emphasized GEO to maintain near-constant line-of-sight to fixed ground receivers, while later studies considered modularity, phased arrays, and different frequency bands to improve safety and efficiency [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Yet the Earth–Sun geometry remains a hard boundary: in any Earth-bound orbit, the planet can occlude the Sun and produce shadowing, and station-keeping in certain regimes can impose additional power requirements. Even when eclipse durations are manageable, the thermal cycling associated with entering and leaving shadow induces mechanical stress, drives material fatigue, and increases the probability of failure in large deployable structures. These effects are typically tolerable for conventional satellites but become central for infrastructure-scale megawatt to gigawatt systems intended to operate for decades.

Heliocentric placement addresses these constraints at the root. In an Earth-like heliocentric orbit near 1 AU, a platform is illuminated essentially continuously because there is no Earth shadowing. The duty cycle can exceed 99% depending on exact geometry and orientation, and the remaining interruptions can be designed around with small-scale regulation storage rather than eclipse-bridging storage. This changes the design space: storage mass scales with transient regulation needs rather than with worst-case eclipse energy. It also improves thermal stability because the system no longer experiences repeated full-scale transitions between sunlight and shadow. In turn, improved thermal stability reduces structural fatigue and can increase effective lifetime of photovoltaic and thermal subsystems.

Therefore, power intermittency in Earth-centric orbits is not merely an inconvenience; it is a structural constraint that pushes SBSP systems toward heavier, more complex designs with shorter effective lifetimes. A heliocentric hub offers a structural pathway to continuous energy generation, which then enables the broader HAP role: persistent power for onboard computing and communication, continuous support for satellite edge nodes, and stable operation as a backbone infrastructure. The next sections formalize this advantage within a broader trilemma that also accounts for traffic density and autonomy.

Comparative Advantage over Earth–Moon Lagrange Points (L1/L2)

Earth–Moon Lagrange points, particularly L1 and L2, offer clear advantages in terms of proximity to Earth and reduced communication latency. As a result, they have been widely adopted for scientific observatories and limited deep-space missions. However, when evaluated from the perspective of infrastructure-scale deployment, L1/L2 locations exhibit fundamental gravitational and geometric limitations that severely constrain long-term scalability.

By definition, Lagrange points represent local equilibrium solutions of the restricted three-body problem and are not volumetric regions but effectively point-like locations surrounded by narrow families of quasi-periodic halo or Lissajous orbits. These orbits are inherently unstable, requiring continuous station-keeping to counteract exponential divergence driven by solar and terrestrial perturbations. As the number and physical extent of co-located assets increase, mutual gravitational interactions and control coupling intensify, leading to rapidly escalating propellant consumption and operational complexity.

In contrast, the heliocentric orbit proposed in this study does not rely on a discrete equilibrium point but instead exploits the full circumsolar orbital manifold at approximately 1 AU. This distinction is critical: a heliocentric configuration provides effectively unbounded azimuthal deployment space, allowing large-scale artificial planetary infrastructure to be distributed along an extended orbital arc or ring without introducing strong mutual gravitational coupling. As a result, infrastructure scaling is governed primarily by manufacturing and assembly capacity rather than orbital crowding or station-keeping constraints.

From an environmental standpoint, L1/L2 regions reside within complex interaction zones shaped by the Earth’s magnetotail, solar wind variability, and transient geomagnetic disturbances. These effects introduce non-stationary thermal and radiation conditions that complicate the long-term operation of large-area power collection structures. A heliocentric orbit, by contrast, offers a predictable and quasi-steady solar radiation environment with minimal shadowing and reduced thermal cycling. This stability significantly enhances structural survivability, thermal control efficiency, and degradation predictability over multi-decade timescales.

Consequently, while L1/L2 architectures remain well suited for point-mission observatories and Earth-proximal deep-space gateways, they are intrinsically ill-matched to the demands of planetary-scale energy and coordination infrastructure. The heliocentric orbital regime uniquely satisfies the combined requirements of spatial scalability, dynamical stability, and environmental predictability, thereby forming the foundational justification for the Heliocentric Artificial Planet concept proposed in this work.

4. Energy–Traffic–Autonomy Trilemma

The feasibility of scaling space infrastructure can be expressed as a trilemma between continuous energy availability (E), traffic density (T), and operational autonomy (A). In practical terms, E captures whether the architecture can deliver near-continuous power for payloads or for export; T captures the extent to which the operational regime is crowded, raising conjunction and coordination burden; and A captures how much decision-making and fault management can be executed without constant human-in-the-loop operations. Earth-centric systems struggle to maximize all three simultaneously because each variable couples to the others through physical and operational constraints. In LEO, high T is attractive for low latency and short link budgets, but it imposes severe constraints on Pc through the N² scaling discussed earlier [16,17,18,19]. Maintaining A in such regimes requires expensive onboard autonomy and high-fidelity ground surveillance, and even then the environment remains coupled. In GEO, T is lower but E is limited by eclipse seasons and by platform mass growth, and the cost of station-keeping and space situational awareness remains nontrivial. In Earth–Sun L1/L2 regimes, E can be high for certain orientations and science missions, but the orbits are metastable and require station-keeping; moreover, these regions are not ideal for exporting large continuous power to Earth due to geometry and distance considerations [13,14,15].

This trilemma becomes particularly salient when the mission shifts from “a satellite does X” to “space infrastructure continuously provides X.” Infrastructure implies persistent service, predictable performance envelopes, and the capacity to expand without catastrophic growth in risk. Terrestrial analogies are instructive: data centers are not built inside crowded traffic intersections; power plants are not placed in places where logistics are irreducibly congested. In space, however, Earth-centric architectures often try to do exactly that: they place the bulk of infrastructure functions (power generation, processing, coordination) inside the most congested orbital shells because those shells are closest to Earth. The result is a scaling deadlock where each attempt to increase E (bigger platforms) or increase A (more autonomy) tends to raise T-related complexity (more mass, more cross-section, more coordination).

A heliocentric artificial planet expands the feasible region because it changes the coupling relationships. In heliocentric placement, T can be kept low even as E grows, since capability scaling is achieved primarily by adding area and modules rather than by adding independent objects to a crowded shell. Moreover, because a HAP functions as a hub, A can be implemented as shared infrastructure: high-performance computing and AI control can be centralized and updated, rather than replicated across every edge satellite. The trilemma thus shifts from a “hard triangle” to a “relaxed feasible region”: E can be increased linearly with collector area, T remains low by design, and A becomes more tractable because coordination and fault management can be centralized. This does not eliminate operational challenges—e.g., long-range power/data transmission—but it changes the scaling laws that dominate risk and cost. The remainder of the paper uses explicit equations and numerical examples to show how heliocentric placement enables this architectural rebalancing.

5. Definition and System Architecture of Heliocentric Artificial Planets

A Heliocentric Artificial Planet (HAP) is defined here as a modular, actively controlled heliocentric infrastructure that is “planet-like” only in the sense that it follows a stable heliocentric trajectory, not in mass, gravity, or habitability. The HAP is conceived as an engineered system-of-systems whose fundamental purpose is to provide persistent energy, communication, computation, and coordination services to a distributed set of space assets. This definition is intentionally engineering-centric: the HAP is not a single monolithic spacecraft but a growing infrastructure assembled from repeated modules, each within the mass and volume class of large satellites or space station elements. This modularity enables phased deployment and replacement, which is crucial for avoiding the “single-point-of-failure megastructure” critique that often undermines large space concepts.

Architecturally, the HAP can be decomposed into layered subsystems: (i) a solar collection layer consisting of photovoltaic arrays and/or solar-thermal collectors sized for gigawatt-class energy capture; (ii) a power bus and storage layer that provides regulation, conversion, and distribution; (iii) an AI control and communication core that performs state estimation, fault diagnosis, resource scheduling, and beam/relay management; and (iv) interface subsystems that connect the HAP to satellite edge nodes and to Earth-based receivers through relay networks. Each layer can be expanded independently, enabling incremental growth in capability without requiring a complete redesign. The system-of-systems framing aligns with established engineering principles: complex infrastructures are best built from loosely coupled subsystems with clear interfaces, enabling upgrades, redundancy, and resilience [24,25].

A crucial design goal is service continuity. Because the HAP is intended as infrastructure, it must tolerate partial degradation and continued operation during maintenance. This implies both redundancy and reconfigurability at the module level: power routing must adapt to failed strings; communication and beamforming must tolerate element loss; computing must operate under graceful degradation. These characteristics are similar to terrestrial data center and grid architectures, where fault-tolerant design is achieved through redundancy, modular replacement, and automated monitoring. The HAP is thus a space analog of a hybrid energy plant plus network backbone plus autonomous operations center.

Finally, the HAP architecture explicitly anticipates a hierarchical relationship with conventional satellites. Rather than replacing satellites, the HAP reduces the burden on them by offloading high-power functions (bulk energy generation, backbone processing, long-haul relay management) to the heliocentric hub. Satellites become edge sensors and actuators that can be simpler, cheaper, and more numerous without proportionally increasing infrastructure-scale complexity. This role separation is central to the HAP rationale: it is the mechanism by which scaling laws improve. Subsequent sections quantify heliocentric placement, energy capture, transmission, and the operational implications of this architecture.

6. Orbital Mechanics and Heliocentric Stability

Heliocentric placement is attractive not because it is exotic, but because it provides a stable, low-traffic environment with near-continuous solar exposure. A practical baseline is an Earth-like heliocentric orbit with a small phase offset (e.g., leading or trailing Earth by a few degrees). Such a configuration preserves an orbital period close to one year, simplifies relative geometry for relay planning, and keeps solar irradiance approximately constant. The orbital mechanics of heliocentric trajectories are well understood: at 1 AU, the Sun’s gravity dominates, and perturbations from planets act as secondary effects that can be managed with occasional station-keeping. Compared to Earth–Sun L1/L2 libration point orbits, which are metastable and require continuous control to remain within bounded regions of phase space, a heliocentric orbit is inherently stable in the two-body approximation and requires comparatively lower intervention for long-term maintenance [12,13,14,15].

The main operational consideration for an Earth-phase-offset orbit is maintaining the desired relative angle over time. Small differences in semi-major axis or orbital energy can cause drift. However, because the HAP is infrastructure-scale, modest propulsion budgets distributed across many modules can provide periodic corrections. The required Δv depends on the chosen orbit design and perturbation environment, but the key point is qualitative: maintaining a heliocentric orbit near 1 AU does not demand continuous station-keeping comparable to that required by halo or Lissajous orbits around libration points. This reduces the propellant fraction allocated to orbit maintenance and improves the feasibility of multi-decade operation.

From a thermal standpoint, the absence of eclipse events yields a stable illumination profile that simplifies thermal control. The HAP can be designed with constant orientation strategies (e.g., sun-pointing collectors plus articulated radiators) without the need to handle frequent transitions through shadow. Stable thermal conditions reduce fatigue, reduce the amplitude of thermoelastic deformation, and improve long-term alignment stability for phased arrays and large structures—an important consideration for wireless power transmission beamforming.

From a traffic standpoint, heliocentric space near 1 AU is not empty, but it is far less crowded than LEO and GEO. The probability of conjunction with Earth-orbit debris is effectively eliminated, and collision risk is dominated by the system’s own internal geometry and by rare heliocentric objects. This environment is thus better suited for scaling large structures whose primary constraint is surface area and alignment rather than proximity operations in a crowded shell. In short, heliocentric placement changes the governing constraints from orbital congestion and eclipse geometry to manufacturing, assembly, and long-range transmission—constraints that are challenging but scale more favorably for infrastructure. The next section leverages these orbital benefits to quantify energy capture and demonstrate explicit power numbers at realistic efficiencies.

7. Solar Power Generation and Quantitative Scaling

The energy advantage of heliocentric placement can be captured with a small set of equations that yield transparent numerical results. At 1 AU, the average solar irradiance (solar constant) is approximately S0 ≈ 1361 W·m⁻² [1,2]. If the HAP employs photovoltaic conversion and associated power conditioning with a system-level efficiency η, the usable electrical power density is Pu = ηS0. The system-level efficiency is the relevant parameter because it accounts not only for cell conversion but also for packing factor, wiring losses, maximum power point tracking, conversion overhead, and degradation margin. This value can be interpreted as “continuous watts per square meter of collector” when illumination is continuous and thermal conditions are well regulated.

Total continuous power is then P = PuA, where A is the effective collector area. Substituting A = 10 km² = 1×10⁷ m² yields P ≈ 408 × 10⁷ ≈ 4.08×10⁹ W, i.e., about 4.08 GW. The linearity here is crucial: doubling area doubles power, with no intrinsic geometric penalty. For comparison, if an Earth-centric platform experiences a duty cycle D due to eclipses (for example, D = 0.85), the average delivered power becomes Pav = D·PuA, meaning that achieving the same average power requires A increased by 1/D, along with storage sized for (1−D) intervals. In heliocentric operation with D≈1, storage requirements are reduced to transient regulation, not eclipse bridging.

Mass scaling depends on structural areal density μ (kg·m⁻²), which includes panels, truss, deployment, wiring, and thermal. If μ is 2 kg·m⁻²—a demanding but not implausible long-term target for large deployables—then a 10 km² collector implies a structural mass of 2×10⁷ kg = 20,000 metric tons. This is large by today’s standards but can be approached through modular assembly and long-horizon industrialization. Crucially, the mass-to-power ratio becomes (μ/Pu) ≈ (2)/(408) ≈ 0.0049 kg·W⁻¹, or about 4.9 kg·kW⁻¹, which is within the conceptual envelope of SBSP feasibility studies that assume significant reductions through mass production and in-space assembly [2,3,4,5,6]. If μ is 4 kg·m⁻², the ratio doubles, illustrating the importance of structural and manufacturing innovations. These calculations do not prove near-term implementation, but they do demonstrate that no physical law prohibits gigawatt-class continuous generation with plausible efficiency and mass density assumptions. The next challenge is delivering that power and associated data services to useful endpoints, which is addressed via wireless transmission architectures.

8. Wireless Power Transmission Architecture and Numerical Link Budgets

Power export from a heliocentric hub is often criticized on the basis of distance, but the relevant conclusion depends on architecture. A naïve single-hop transmission from 1 AU to Earth is indeed challenged by free-space path loss. The first-order received power for a line-of-sight link can be expressed with the Friis relation: Pr = PtGtGr(λ/4πR)², where Pt is transmitted power, Gt and Gr are antenna gains, λ is wavelength, and R is separation distance [7,8,9]. Consider a microwave frequency of 2.45 GHz, for which λ ≈ 0.122 m. Suppose the HAP transmits Pt = 5 GW (a fraction of the 10 km² generation example). If both the transmitter and receiver employ phased arrays with gains Gt = Gr = 10⁷ (~70 dBi), which corresponds to very large effective apertures, then at R = 1 AU ≈ 1.496×10¹¹ m, the factor (λ/4πR)² becomes extraordinarily small, yielding Pr far below useful levels. This numerical result is correct—and it is precisely why realistic architectures do not attempt single-hop delivery.

The structural solution is distance segmentation via relay nodes. If the effective transmission path is divided such that each hop occurs over distances on the order of 10⁷–10⁸ m (e.g., GEO scale ~4×10⁷ m, or cislunar distances), then the same gains yield Pr improved by (R_old/R_new)². Reducing distance by a factor of 10⁴ increases Pr by a factor of 10⁸. In practice, relay nodes can refocus beams, perform frequency conversion, and manage safety interlocks. This concept aligns with decades of SBSP studies that emphasize phased arrays, rectennas, and controlled power density as enabling features [8,9,10,11,38]. The engineering conclusion is that heliocentric distance does not forbid power export; it demands a hierarchical architecture where the heliocentric hub provides generation and first-hop beaming to strategically placed relays, which then deliver to Earth or to Earth-orbit receivers.

Safety and regulatory constraints further motivate relays. A beam intended for Earth must satisfy power density limits to avoid hazards to aviation, wildlife, and human exposure. Using relays permits smaller spot sizes where appropriate, dynamic beam steering with exclusion zones, and the ability to terminate transmission rapidly if pointing deviates. Phased array control technologies for beam shaping and sidelobe management are a known research area, and the HAP concept leverages rather than invents this foundation [9,10]. Laser transmission is an alternative with higher power density but stricter atmospheric and eye-safety concerns, and it may be most attractive for space-to-space transfer or as a complementary channel for data and precision power routing [37].

Finally, the same relay architecture supports data aggregation and communication. High-gain links used for power can also host high-capacity communications, enabling the HAP to function as a backbone node for satellite telemetry and for deep-space relay. This dual-use of aperture and pointing control improves overall system economics. The subsequent sections address the environmental reliability of continuous heliocentric operation and the autonomy framework required to manage such a complex, distributed infrastructure.

9. Thermal, Radiation, and Degradation Environment

Long-term feasibility requires that a HAP survive the heliocentric environment for decades with manageable degradation. The thermal environment in heliocentric orbit near 1 AU is, in some ways, simpler than in Earth-centric orbits because illumination is continuous and predictable. The absence of repeated eclipse cycles reduces large-amplitude temperature swings, which are a major driver of thermo-mechanical fatigue in deployable structures. Reduced cycling can improve the longevity of adhesives, joints, and composite materials, and it can stabilize the alignment of large apertures used for beamforming. However, continuous illumination also implies continuous heating; therefore radiator sizing, emissivity stability, and thermal control architecture remain central. The benefit is that the system can be designed around a steady-state balance rather than around extreme transient cases. This can reduce peak thermal stress and simplify control laws.

Radiation exposure in heliocentric space includes galactic cosmic rays, solar energetic particles, and trapped radiation is largely absent compared to Earth’s belts (depending on exact orbit). Electronics must be designed for total ionizing dose, displacement damage, and single-event effects. The relevant mitigation toolbox is well established: shielding, part selection, error-correcting codes, redundancy, and fault-tolerant computing. Radiation effects in microelectronics have been extensively characterized, and design methodologies exist for ensuring long-duration performance even under harsh conditions [28,29]. Models for cumulative heavy-ion deposition and dose accumulation support mission-level predictions and margins [30].

A key additional factor is space weather: coronal mass ejections and solar energetic particle events can produce transient increases in particle flux that stress electronics and, in extreme cases, solar arrays. Yet this risk is not unique to HAPs; interplanetary spacecraft routinely operate under similar conditions. Moreover, the HAP’s role as a heliophysics monitor can provide early warning to Earth-orbit systems, creating a net benefit for the broader space ecosystem.

Degradation of photovoltaic performance over decades is expected due to radiation and micrometeoroid impacts. Modular design addresses this by enabling replacement of degraded arrays without decommissioning the entire platform. The same modularity supports incremental upgrades: as solar cell efficiencies improve, new modules can be added to increase power density without altering the core architecture. This is analogous to how terrestrial power grids integrate new generation technologies while maintaining legacy infrastructure. Thus, the long-term environment does not invalidate the concept; it emphasizes the need for modular replacement and for autonomy that can manage gradual degradation. The next section focuses on autonomy and AI integration as essential enablers for operating such a distributed system without prohibitive human operations cost.