I don't think that you need dimmer meteors to be more valuable. Let's consider a rather simple model. Detectors come in steps and doubling the cost halves the brightness at which meteors can be spotted. We'll ignore that meteors that are farther away can be seen sooner with better detectors (already explained at this answer). And we'll pretend that all meteors are the same value to start.
Now, if you have stage one detectors, you can see half the meteors. With stage two, three quarters. Stage three, seven eighths. See the pattern? With each stage, you only miss half as many meteors. And remember, we double the cost at each stage.
Now let's make some competitors. We'll make eight competitors with stage one detectors; four with stage two; two with stage three; and one with stage four. So for a given meteor of stage one brightness, all fifteen competitors will be able to see it. With stage four, only one competitor. If more than one competitor can see it, assume they split it (or they have an equal chance of getting it, such that over time they effectively split the flow).
The result of this is that the single group with stage four detectors obtains all the stage four meteors. That's a sixteenth of the total. Half of the stage three meteors for half of an eighth, which is a sixteenth. Same pattern for stage two and one, so four sixteenths or a quarter total.
Meanwhile, the group with stage three detectors only gets three sixteenths, as they don't get any of the stage four meteors. The two stage two groups only get an eighth (two sixteenths). And the four stage one groups only get a sixteenth each. The remaining sixteenth are not recovered.
The stage four group gets more meteors than anyone else. If the 33% increase in revenue is enough to account for the cost increase in the detectors, then it can still work.
One might argue that dimmer meteors are likely smaller and less valuable. That's realistic. So let's add another piece of realism. It's likely there are more small meteors than large meteors. So let's change our original assumption that all meteors are equally valuable and instead say that small meteors are more common. So our overall mass or volume of meteors is constant, as the increase in quantity offsets the decrease in quality. We don't need to change the analysis otherwise.
So let's get back to another previous simplifying assumption, that better detectors only allow us to find more meteors, not to find meteors sooner. Let's assume that a stage four detector gives twice the chance to recover a stage three meteor. So now instead of a sixteenth, the stage four group gets two thirds of that eighth. And everything else scales the same way.
$$\frac{1}{16} + \frac{2}{2+1}\cdot\frac{1}{8} + \frac{4}{4 + 2 + 2\cdot 1}\cdot\frac{1}{4} + \frac{8}{8 + 4 + 2\cdot 2 + 4\cdot 1}\cdot\frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{16} + \frac{1}{12} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{5} = \frac{113}{240}$$
Now we have the stage four getting almost half the revenue. Let's add up the costs (the stage four is 8).
$$ 8 + 4 + 2 \cdot 2 + 4 \cdot 1 = 20$$
So the stage four spends 40% of the total cost on detectors but gets about 47% of the revenue. The better detectors are more than paying for themselves.