## 6 Performance Evaluation Results
### Comparison with a BER of 0  
Figure 5 illustrates a comparison of the goodput (vs. delay) of three different protocol options and their hybrid for file transmission over the primary and secondary cislunar communication paths with a BER of 0. In Table 3, the notations in Figure 5 are described. As observed from Figure 5, the goodput of the LTP LTP PRIM is the highest at all the experimented delay settings. LTP TCP SEC also shows high goodput, but only at delays of 1280 ms and 1500 ms. Along with the increase in delay, the goodput drastically drops and binds LTP UDP SEC and UDP LTP PRIM. In comparison, UDP LTP PRIM has the lowest consistently at all link delays--around 1500 bytes/s. For a hybrid of two protocols over primary and secondary paths, the goodput of LTP UDP SEC is comparatively higher than UDP LTP PRIM for the link delays up to 3000 ms. For a longer delay, they show about equal performance. This observation is supported  
Figure 5: Goodput (vs. link delay) comparison of three different protocols and their hybrid over the primary and secondary cislunar communication paths with a BER of 0. (**a**) Goodput. (**b**) Goodput differences and \(p\)-values. by statistical analysis in Figure 5b. _P_-LTP UDP SEC vs. UDP LTP PRIM is smaller than 0.01 for the link delays of 1280 ms-3000 ms. This provides very strong evidence to reject \(H_{0}\), implying significant goodput difference between LTP UDP SEC and UDP LTP PRIM for this range of delay. We also see that LTP UDP SEC-UDP LTP PRIM remains positive, decreasing from 700 bytes/s to 50 bytes/s, in this range of link delay. This explains why LTP UDP SEC has significant goodput advantage over UDP LTP PRIM for the simulated link delays of 1280 ms-3000 ms. For the delays of 3500 ms-4500 ms, _P_-LTP UDP SEC vs. UDP LTP PRIM is around 0.5, providing no real evidence to reject \(H_{0}\) and no significant goodput difference between two configurations. For a comparison between LTP UDP SEC and LTP TCP SEC, we see that LTP TCP SEC has higher goodput for delays around 1500 ms or shorter. As the delay increases, the performance difference between the two protocol transmissions disappears. The _p_-values in Figure 5b prove this. _P_-LTP TCP SEC vs. LTP UDP SEC is smaller than 0.01 for the delays of 1500 ms or shorter. This is very strong evidence to reject \(H_{0}\), which implies a significant performance difference between LTP TCP SEC and LTP UDP SEC. The numerical value of LTP TCP SEC-LTP UDP SEC is around 1200 bytes/s for this range of delay, which is the goodput advantage of LTP TCP SEC over LTP UDP SEC. The _p_-values are mostly greater than 0.1 for delays around 2000 ms or longer, indicating that the two protocols have no significant goodput difference. As we also observed, LTP LTP PRIM has a significant advantage over UDP LTP PRIM throughout all delays. For this comparison, we ran LTPCL/UDP for a long link from MX to RX and ran two different protocols for the short delay from TX to MX, i.e., one running LTPCL/UDP and another running UDPCL/UDP. The performance difference implies that UDPCL/UDP running over a short-delay link affects the performance of the LTPCL/UDP running over a long-delay link, resulting in performance degradation for the complete connection. Please note that LTP LTP PRIM is not involved in the comparison with other protocol options in Figure 5b. This is because it is obvious in Figure 5a that LTP LTP PRIM has significant goodput advantage over any other protocols. There is no need for any verification.