How does the cost profile of LEO systems differ from GEO systems regarding investment structure?

LEO necessitates a lower investment per satellite but requires a persistent, ongoing launch cadence

The fundamental difference in lifespan and constellation size dictates opposing cost profiles. GEO infrastructure involves designing and launching a single, highly complex, very expensive satellite intended for long-term service lasting 15 years or more. If this single unit fails, the financial and coverage consequence is severe. LEO systems shift this financial burden. The cost allocated to manufacturing and launching each individual LEO satellite is much lower because they are smaller and simpler. However, this advantage is balanced by the operational necessity of maintaining a persistent, ongoing launch cadence to replace the units that expire every five to seven years, while simultaneously expanding the network to meet growing coverage demands.