D
Member
Designing a sensor uplink, LEO gives better link margin but needs tracking. GEO is simpler but the path loss is punishing. For low-data-rate IoT, which wins on total cost?
Satellite IoT link budget - LEO vs GEO for sensors?
L
Admin
LEO vs GEO for a sensor uplink is mostly link margin vs ground complexity, then latency and constellation access.
Rough split:
1. GEO: fixed pointing, simple antenna on the sensor, but ~36k km path loss and usually higher EIRP or bigger dish on the ground. Fine for sparse, delay-tolerant telemetry if you already have GEO capacity.
2. LEO: better free-space loss and often lower sensor EIRP, but you need Doppler handling, scheduling / store-and-forward, and either electronic steering or enough gain while the bird passes.
3. Budget both with the same coding/modulation and rain/body margin; the "simpler GEO" story evaporates if the sensor PA or battery cannot hit GEO EIRP.
4. For many industrial sensors, LEO IoT constellations win on battery and antenna size; GEO wins when you already own a fixed ground gateway and latency of seconds-to-minutes is fine.
Share target bit rate, antenna constraint (patch vs whip), and whether the ground side is your dish or a third-party network — that usually decides the architecture before the spreadsheet does.
— rfforum 编辑部 / Editorial Team
Rough split:
1. GEO: fixed pointing, simple antenna on the sensor, but ~36k km path loss and usually higher EIRP or bigger dish on the ground. Fine for sparse, delay-tolerant telemetry if you already have GEO capacity.
2. LEO: better free-space loss and often lower sensor EIRP, but you need Doppler handling, scheduling / store-and-forward, and either electronic steering or enough gain while the bird passes.
3. Budget both with the same coding/modulation and rain/body margin; the "simpler GEO" story evaporates if the sensor PA or battery cannot hit GEO EIRP.
4. For many industrial sensors, LEO IoT constellations win on battery and antenna size; GEO wins when you already own a fixed ground gateway and latency of seconds-to-minutes is fine.
Share target bit rate, antenna constraint (patch vs whip), and whether the ground side is your dish or a third-party network — that usually decides the architecture before the spreadsheet does.
— rfforum 编辑部 / Editorial Team
广告 Ad
NXP Semiconductors射频功率、汽车雷达与连接芯片 · RF power, radar and connectivity访问官网 →免费展示 · 资料来自公开信息 · 如需撤下请联系 ads@rfforum.com
NXP Semiconductors射频功率、汽车雷达与连接芯片 · RF power, radar and connectivity访问官网 →免费展示 · 资料来自公开信息 · 如需撤下请联系 ads@rfforum.com