<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Bravo! Data!</p>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/2/22 5:24 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAB69EHiT2jQqJALMuKQbJrc6EhD1ogOBF-3yQ0q8532OiRpnHA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I have just completed some very unscientific tests of DIY
camouflage materials vs a starlink terminal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Terminal is the same as the following RIPE atlas probe
location: <a href="https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/1001821"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/1001821</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Terminal is a v1 from Jan. 2021.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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). <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Average of multiple <a href="http://speedtest.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">speedtest.net</a> CLI runs to server
ID 11329 in Seattle. In general any of the well-peered <a
href="http://speedtest.net" moz-do-not-send="true">speedtest.net</a>
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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>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.</b></div>
<div>152.48 Mbps down x 8.23 Mbps up, 3.17% loss</div>
<div>(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). <br>
</div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>Tent rain fly, synthetic nylon material, dry</b></div>
<div>162.02 Mbps down x 7.14 Mbps up, 1.43% loss<b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>Two layers cotton bed sheet, doubled over on itself,
thoroughly soaked in tap water</b></div>
<div>55.79 Mbps down x 3.70 Mbps up, 0.77% loss</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>One layer cotton bed sheet, dry</b></div>
<div>158.78 Mbps down x 7.16 Mbps up, 0.9% loss</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Two layers thin polypropylene tarpaulin, doubled over on
itself, approximately simulating the thickness of a single
layer heavy duty tarp.</b></div>
<div>152.77 Mbps down x 9.70 Mbps up, 1.41% loss</div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>