What significant trade-off is associated with the low count of satellites used in Geostationary Orbit (GEO)?
Answer
Noticeable signal travel time, known as latency
The major trade-off inherent in utilizing the low satellite count characteristic of Geostationary Orbit (GEO) systems is the resulting signal delay, specifically high latency. Because GEO satellites are positioned extremely high above the Earth's surface—allowing them to maintain a fixed position relative to the ground—the physical distance the signal must travel up to the satellite and back down to the receiver is substantial. This considerable distance means the time taken for signals to travel becomes noticeable to users. This latency contrasts sharply with LEO systems, where the proximity minimizes travel time but requires significantly more hardware to maintain continuous coverage.
Related Questions
What is the widely cited minimum number for continuous Earth coverage using geostationary satellites?What figure approximates the bare minimum LEO satellites needed at an altitude of 1,000 kilometers?Which orbital regime demands massive quantity for minimum delay, contrasting with GEO's few units?Roughly what percentage of the Earth's surface can a single satellite in Geostationary Orbit (GEO) observe ideally?What is the single most important factor determining the required quantity of satellites for coverage?Why do LEO constellations require orders of magnitude more satellites than a GEO system?For practical GEO systems avoiding obstructions, what number of satellites is often proposed beyond the absolute minimum?What significant trade-off is associated with the low count of satellites used in Geostationary Orbit (GEO)?If 48 satellites is the bare minimum for continuous LEO coverage at 1,000 km, what number suggests wider coverage or redundancy at that altitude?What requirement causes the satellite count to swell dramatically, contrasting with the small number needed for coverage sometime during 24 hours?