Including yours...
1>Targeting in GEO is nearly impossible so far,...
Technically difficult. But not impossible. Not even 'nearly' impossible.
...as all ASAT test are done in LEO.
We have gone beyond testings. The US actually completed 'proof of concept' when we destroyed USA-193. Yes, it was in Low Earth Orbit, but the intention was to prove that the ABM SM-3 could be used as an ASAT.
And also a mass vessel will needed for GEO.
No idea what this mean...
2>Even satellites can be deflected by natural powers like drag, earth's irregularity & gravitational force of extra terrestrial planets.
Only up to a point.
Reboost - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reboost is the process of boosting the altitude of an artificial satellite, to increase the time until its orbit will decay and it re-enters the atmosphere. For example, the International Space Station has been given a reboost by the Space Shuttle, the Progress resupply vehicle, and the Automated Transfer Vehicle when docked, because it is in a low Earth orbit which experiences significant atmospheric drag.
There is an inverse relationship between orbital altitude and reboost frequency. Chiefly, the higher the orbit altitude, the less frequent the need for reboost.
Low Earth orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...the commonly accepted definition for LEO is between 160 kilometers (99 mi) (with a period of about 88 minutes) and 2,000 kilometers (1,200 mi) (with a period of about 127 minutes) above the Earth's surface.
A 200 km altitude LEO requires a reboost once every few weeks, more like an orbital maintenance boost once a calendar month. Up to 400 km altitude, which is still technically LEO, that interval increases to once every few months, more like once every 6 months.
A geosync orbit is about 42,000 km altitude, which means practically no reboosts are needed at all. This is not the same as an orbital adjustment, which mean the satellite make minor changes to compensate for other than orbital decay reasons that are related to atmospheric drag.
So far every test was done in stimulated control environment.
Nothing wrong with that. But we did more than laboratory testing.
Thats mean path of SAT & missile was forced to intercept each other in a point. Still in real war one need to prove there capability. Because even tracking of SAt is impossible especially if it not your.:Tongue:
An anti-satellite weapon
IS a satellite. Just like a ballistic missile and the interceptor are both missiles.
There are two ways to have an intercept: A head on collision or a tail chase collision.
Both are technically interceptions. It is a common laymen misconception that an 'interception' is restricted to head on.
Regarding an anti-satellite weapon, it can be co-orbital or direct ascent. This goes for either tail chase or head on collision.
The US is not interested in the co-orbital solution.
A co-orbital solution is where the ASAT maneuvers into the exact same orbital path, including altitude, as the target. If the interception is tail chase, then the ASAT must have higher orbital speed than the target. If the ASAT placed itself in front of the target, then it must be in a lower speed. In either case, the higher speed differential the more effective the destruction.
Moons of Saturn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moons of Saturn
...two mutually co-orbital moons...
S1 and S3 are not exactly the same orbit but their orbits are so close together that if it were not for gravitational forces they would collide.
Cassini Solstice Mission: Janus
The slight velocity difference means the inner moon catches up to the other in approximately four Earth years. At that time, the gravity interaction between the two pulls the inner moon faster, moving it to a higher orbit. At the same time, the catching-up inner moon drags the leading outer moon backward so that it drops into a lower orbit. The result is that the two exchange places; the nearest they approach is within 15,000 kilometers (6,200 miles). The next trade is in 2010.
So co-orbiting satellites
DO OCCUR in nature.
For a functional ASAT system, the US is interested in the direct ascent solution. It mean the weapon is guided towards the target and make a straight line for it. This is much sooner towards destruction than the time consuming co-orbital method but it is more technically difficult.
ASM-135 ASAT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States developed direct ascent anti-satellite weapons.
The direct ascent method is more flexible in that is is launch location independent, meaning the rocket does not require an ideal Earth location to achieve the intended orbit. The interceptor can even be launched in mid-air as proved by the F-15 launch of the ASM-135. The interceptor warhead just need to have enough speed for either head on or tail chase collision.
Basically, the direct ascent method involve calculating a series of future locations of the target satellite in its orbit, then launch the interceptor rocket towards the most ideal point in that series of future locations. It is ideal for 'time sensitive' situations where a target must be destroyed at the soonest opportunity, whereas with the co-orbital method, the interceptor rocket must achieve the same orbit as the target satellite, releases the interceptor warhead, and either let it catches up to the target or the interceptor warhead places itself directly in the target's path. Depending on orbit, it can take days to destroy a target.
