Aren’t you overlooking constraints on transmit power for mobile transmitters being better served my low earth orbit than higher orbits?

They're also overlooking the actual prices of GEO satellites versus LEO. LEO is much cheaper than GEO, there's a reason DOD and others are moving towards it and it's not that it's a fad. GEO has a few specific benefits but cost is not one of them.

great point; agreed

> Fewer, dimmer, satellites at higher orbits are actually cheaper

GEO satellites are pretty pricey. Each Milstar satellite cost $800 million, others in the same category are also in the hundreds of millions, WGS-11 was over $600 million. Starlink V2 cost $800k per satellite.

And if you spent $800 million on a constellation of 1000 Starlinks, you'd have better coverage and bandwidth than the entire 6 satellite Milstar constellation put together for 1/6th the price.

Digging around for more recent prices, GEO is around $100-300 million. That's still orders of magnitude more per satellite than LEO. At the low end this means you could get 100-400 Starlink V2s up there for the price of one GEO. One GEO that only covers part of the globe, versus 100-400 satellites providing global coverage.

It's crazy how unnecessary things can be trillion dollar industries :)

yeah like carbon credits

Satellites have to pass through the Van Allen belts in order to get into such higher orbits, which may expose them to a not insignificant amount of radiation, especially if the final orbit injection is not done in a single impulse. Then, once they are comfortably out in their higher orbit, they have to endure yet more radiation without the aid of the Earth's magnetic field, and require more cooling capacity due to spending much less time in Earth's shadow than an LEO satellite.