## 3 Results
### Test Measurements at Cuiab/Real Scenario  
Expanding on the previous results, as a key contribution of the article, we apply our design strategy in an experimental scenario, considering field measurements recently conducted at the Cuiaba site in December 2022. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Elevation (\({}^{\circ}\))** & **INR (dB)** & **\% of Time (\({}^{\text{22}}\)) (CCSDS, 2013)**[15] & \(R_{b}\) (\({}^{\text{13}}\)) Mbps & \(T_{hr}\) (\({}^{\text{22}}\)) Gbits** \\ \hline
90 & 8.01 & 16.6 & 51.28 & \\
75 & 8.37 & 13.6 & 51.28 & \\
60 & 9.44 & 25.2 & 51.28 & \\
30 & 11.45 & 35.4 & 39.65 & \\
5.7 & 13.70 & 9.2 & 6.45 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Notes: \({}^{(1)}\) the bandwidth is limited to 51.28 MHz; \({}^{(2)}\) visibility of 12 min (elevation of \(0^{\circ}\) a 180\({}^{\circ}\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Throughput for no-coding QPSK/interference scenario (_INR_ vs. elevation). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Elev. (\({}^{\circ}\))** & **INR dB** & **MODCOD** & **ID** & **\% of Time (\({}^{\text{22}}\))** & \(R_{b}\) (\({}^{\text{1}}\)) Mbps** & \(T_{hr}\) (\({}^{\text{23}}\)) Gbits** \\ \hline
90 & 8.01 & 8 PSK 9/10 & 2 & 16.6 & 137.39 & \\
75 & 8.37 & 16 APSK 5/6 & 3 & 13.6 & 169.23 & \\
60 & 9.44 & 1 PSK 5/6 & 4 & 25.2 & 127.1 & 82.878 \\
30 & 11.45 & QPSK 9/10 & 6 & 35.4 & 91.92 & \\
5.7 & 13.70 & QPSK 3/5 & 8 & 9.2 & 51.28 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Notes: \({}^{(1)}\) the bandwidth is limited to 51.28 MHz; \({}^{(2)}\) visibility of 12 min (elevation of \(0^{\circ}\) a 180\({}^{\circ}\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Throughput X MODCOD (in ACM). The ERG facility in the city of Cuiaba, Brazil, receives TM signals during the passage of the C-4 satellite, transmitting the TM image from the satellite's payload cameras in real time. We performed interference characterization by measuring the power of the interfering signal at the ERG receiving antenna as a function of the antenna azimuth and elevation angles and comparing this interference with the desired signal power levels received from the satellite. These results enable the acquisition of the carrier-to-interference ratio (_C/I_) and the interference-to-noise ratio (_INR_) necessary to implement the proposed strategy. In our testing procedure, we operated with a high-performance ERG reception system with an 11.28 m diameter antenna. Figure 7 summarizes the implemented configuration. This reception system assumes a G/T performance of 35.5 dB. Our solution, proposed in Section 2.4, can be applied based on the interference measured at the Cuiaba location. Figure 8 presents the power spectrum of the FS interference signal at the central frequency (_f\({}_{c}\)_) of 8308 MHz @ \(BW\) = 37 MHz. It is worth noting that the interference is located in the operational bandwidth of WFI of C-4, _f\({}_{c}\)_ = 8290 MHz @ \(BW\) = 51.28 MHz. Furthermore, we can observe adjacent FS channels interfering in this spectrum band. Figure 8: Power spectrum of the interference, _f\({}_{c}\)_ = 8308 MHz. Figure 7: Setup in the ERG system. The harmful interference effect can be observed in the several black and color horizontal stripes on the moving-window image for a given satellite passage, presented in Figure 9. Each degraded WFI image line indicates 121k bits lost. The degree of harmful interference level can be checked when the image scenes are rejected by INPE's quality assurance in the processing procedure (see lack of coverage points in Figure 5b). The maximum tracked interference that generates these failures on the WFI images arises at \(Az=333.5^{\circ}\). Further investigation on site identified the FS transmitting antenna at the corresponding azimuth, seen in Figure 10 below. Figure 9: WFI images with harmful interference effects. In this manner, the MODCODs are adapted during satellite visibility based on _INR_ for antenna elevation angles (Table 6). With current WFI link parameters for C-4, the \(T_{hr}\) = 52.796 Gbits.