Satellites vs Beanstalks

OK, so there are important tasks that can't be efficiently
done from geosynchronous orbit; but if we want to build a
beanstalk, we can't let satellites and random space junk
slam into it either.

Could we put satellites into inclined orbits which always
cross the plane of the equator at certain fixed longitudes,
to make sure they can never hit the beanstalk?

I'm thinking it could work out if the period were an even
integral fraction of a day, such as 90 minutes (275 km) or
2 hours (1680 km); is this a correct assumption?

--
>;k
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Slow Re-entry
    ... :> inclined geosynchronous orbits, and they won't hit the beanstalk ... :satellites, if unchecked, _will_ hit the beanstalk eventually. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Slow Re-entry
    ... >> of geosynchronous orbit: you can only be in the equatorial ... you should be able to put satellites into ... I'm thinking the beanstalk could have debris-control lasers ... For bigger debris, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Slow Re-entry
    ... >> inclined geosynchronous orbits, and they won't hit the beanstalk ... > satellites, if unchecked, _will_ hit the beanstalk eventually. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Satellites vs Beanstalks
    ... >beanstalk, we can't let satellites and random space junk ... >Could we put satellites into inclined orbits which always ... beanstalk if its orbit happens to intersect it on one of its passes, ... tether, a small reliable rocket, perhaps for the really low ones a big ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Satellites vs Beanstalks
    ... > beanstalk -- satellites are constantly perturbed and so cannot ... > be expected to maintain a precise orbit indefinitely. ... Even just putting the explosives on board would make it ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
Loading