Does anyone have any rules of thumb on this? I can imagine that for dynamical reasons, orbits approximately aligned with the ecliptic would be ideal space ports for assembling and launching deep solar system missions, and orbits aligned with Earth’s equator are probably energetically the most accessible. I also know earth resources satellites and reconnaissance satellites are best operating in polar orbits, while communications birds are placed in geostationary ones. Deep space telescopes are often placed at the Lagrangian points. But are all these parameters discussed and summarized anywhere?

Also, what is the tradeoff between low earth orbit and higher orbits. I imagine it is easier to get to LEO than farther out, but LEO is vulnerable to atmospheric drag, and may have other disadvantages I’m not even aware of. And what about vulnerability to space debris? Surely this is a complex function of orbital altitude and inclination.

I suspect if you’re only going to build one station, you try to come up with the best possible compromise that takes into account the possible mission(s) of the platform and the complications of construction. I can imagine a situation where champions of a science lab and proponents of a deep space port would both be disappointed by a compromise hammered out by a bureaucratic committee that tried to please everybody.

Can anyone summarize this for me, or point me somewhere I can read up on it? If we could afford to build multiple space stations, how many would we make, and what would their orbital elements be? Thanks.