Starlink terminal visual camouflage tests vs improvised fabric materials
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 CLI runs to server ID 11329 in Seattle. In general any of the well-peered 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
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 * * * * * * * *
participants (2)
-
Eric Kuhnke -
Michael Thomas