In an industry filled with acronyms and rapid innovation, it’s easy for satellite connectivity conversations to get complicated. Speed and scale are often the focus when choosing an orbit, but this framing can miss a more practical fact: different satellite orbits behave differently, and those differences matter depending on the actual use of connectivity.
That back-to-basics perspective is the main focus of an episode of “Satellite Stories,” the SES podcast hosted by Kristina Smith-Meyer. Michael Geist, Vice President of Product Management for SES Space and Defense, joins Smith-Meyer to discuss the fundamentals of Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), and Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
Geist begins with coverage, which is the most visible distinction between satellite orbits. Because LEO satellites are closest to Earth, their coverage areas are very small. MEO satellites sit further out, allowing each satellite to cover a larger region. The largest coverage area is offered by GEO satellites, which are positioned farthest from Earth. Each orbit’s performance is shaped by these physical differences, which explains why no single orbit can effectively meet every connectivity need on its own.
The episode made it clear that latency is more complex than a single number, even though it is frequently used as the defining metric for satellite networks. LEO satellites provide the lowest physical-layer latency since they are closest to Earth. Nevertheless, user traffic congestion can introduce variability, sometimes significantly increasing end-to-end delays. MEO satellites operate with higher physical-layer latency than LEO but remain responsive for cloud-native applications when traffic is dedicated, and congestion is limited. GEO satellites operate with much higher physical-layer latency, which can increase further as network congestion is added.
These latency characteristics directly affect application performance. Because of its proximity to earth, LEO performs well for general internet traffic, while MEO supports internet use when traffic is managed. GEO can support internet connectivity, but higher latency makes it less ideal compared to lower orbits. Geist explains that MEO is best suited for enterprise applications that depend on predictable latency and limited congestion. LEO is considered fair for enterprise use, though variability and availability challenges can arise as networks become more congested. GEO, on the other hand, is poorly suited for cloud-native enterprise applications because its higher latency exceeds what those applications can reliably tolerate.
Broadcast connectivity follows different logic. Due to its extensive geographic coverage, GEO is the best choice because broadcast prioritizes reach over responsiveness. Both LEO and MEO are poorly suited for broadcast, since their smaller coverage areas would require repeated rebroadcasts to reach large audiences efficiently.
The conversation then shifts to global availability and scalability. Although GEO systems provide broad coverage, there are gaps between satellites. MEO systems are effective at filling coverage gaps along the equator, where much of the world’s population resides. LEO systems excel in polar regions, where satellite dwell time is greatest. When combined, these orbits work in tandem to increase availability and reduce network congestion.
This integrated value becomes clear in mobility use cases such as maritime vessels or aerial platforms that move across latitudes. As these platforms travel, they naturally move between the optimal coverage regions of different orbits. By using multiple orbits, connectivity can adapt to changing operational conditions and deliver better performance.
As Geist summarized in the episode, “All orbits provide value based upon the different applications that customers may use.” The message from this episode is clear: satellite connectivity isn’t about picking one orbit over another. It’s about understanding how each orbit works and how using them together can meet real-world needs.
