Starlink terminal visual camouflage tests vs improvised fabric materials

Thu Mar 3 01:30:40 UTC 2022

Bravo! Data!

Mike

On 3/2/22 5:24 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> I have just completed some very unscientific tests of DIY camouflage 
> materials vs a starlink terminal.
>
> Obviously there is a lot of possible discussion that is possible about 
> spectrum analyzers, direction finding, jammers, etc within the context 
> of what's going on in Ukraine right now. All very valid concerns.
>
> That said, there's also some DIY possibilities for making a starlink 
> terminal much less noticeable from the air or casual observation, such 
> as if installed on top of a mid rise apartment building in any 
> Ukrainian city. I would wager that the ratio of portable Ku/Ka-band 
> spectrum analyzers with horn antennas to invasion foot 
> soldiers/armored vehicle soldiers is rather low at present.
>
> Terminal is the same as the following RIPE atlas probe location: 
> https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/1001821
>
> Terminal is a v1 from Jan. 2021.
>
> Fabrics have been draped flat over the Starlink terminal. What effect 
> this will have vs. suspended in the air a meter or so above it on some 
> sort of improvised framework is a question I can't really answer right 
> now (if we have any inflatable or fabric radome specialists here, 
> please chime in).
>
> Average of multiple speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net> CLI runs to 
> server ID 11329 in Seattle. In general any of the well-peered 
> speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net> servers in Seattle have the same 
> results, the bottleneck is the starlink last-mile performance at any 
> given point in time, and not any terrestrial network factors.
>
>
> *Baseline terminal with no material above it. I do have a slight tree 
> obstruction in 1/12th of its field of view to the northeast.*
> 152.48 Mbps down x 8.23 Mbps up, 3.17% loss
> (note this averages more like 0.43% loss over 3 to 10 hour periods to 
> its gateway in Seattle, I believe the loss during the particular time 
> period this data was gathered to be an aberration).
> *
> *
> *Tent rain fly, synthetic nylon material, dry*
> 162.02 Mbps down x 7.14 Mbps up, 1.43% loss*
> *
> *
> *
> *Two layers cotton bed sheet, doubled over on itself, thoroughly 
> soaked in tap water*
> 55.79 Mbps down x 3.70 Mbps up, 0.77% loss
>
> *One layer cotton bed sheet, dry*
> 158.78 Mbps down x 7.16 Mbps up, 0.9% loss
>
> *Two layers thin polypropylene tarpaulin, doubled over on itself, 
> approximately simulating the thickness of a single layer heavy duty tarp.*
> 152.77 Mbps down x 9.70 Mbps up, 1.41% loss
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220302/73cc5bef/attachment.html>