# TinyGS vs. SatNOGS: A Comparative Analysis of Open-Source Satellite Ground Station Networks
## 1 Introduction
Regarding the aspect of adding the satellite to one of these projects, since it is also of interest, it is necessary first to provide all the satellite details to the project. These details include the downlink frequency, upload frequency, and, if not confidential, the decoder. To provide this relevant information, Telegram is used for TinyGS and GitLab for SatNOGS (All steps can be found in the Satellite Operator Guide [8]). Once the satellite is added to the projects' databases, ground stations can immediately start communicating with and receiving data from it. This data can then be visualized, for example, in the respective web applications. Moreover, network collaboration is not exclusive to satellite developers. Space and communication enthusiasts also find valuable opportunities to participate in these projects. First, they can communicate with satellites solely through the simple and inexpensive construction and integration of a GS into the network. Second, in addition to contributing to the community, they also have the chance to deepen their knowledge of satellites and communication. Despite previously emphasizing the need to construct ground stations (GSs) for participation in these projects, it is also feasible to do so by leveraging existing GSs. This approach offers advantages such as cost reduction and rapid integration. However, it is crucial to initially verify whether the components of the GS are compatible with the software used in the projects. For instance, if one intends to utilize a non-fixed GS (equipped with rotators that can change the antenna's direction) for integration into SatNOGS, it is imperative to ascertain whether the computer can run the software and whether the antenna rotator is compatible with the specified software. Since TinyGS and SatNOGS are two of the largest open-source ground station networks in recent years, in order to assist in a potential decision regarding which project to join, in this article, these two GS networks, SatNOGS and TinyGS, will be introduced and compared. The structure of this article is as follows. In Section 2, the methodology employed in this study is comprehensively addressed, outlining the systematic approach utilized. In Section 3, the constituent parts of SatNOGS, its operation, and the block diagram of SatNOGS's architecture and GS are presented. Section 4 addresses the aforementioned topics, but in the context of TinyGS. Section 5 delves into a detailed discussion of the comparisons mentioned in Section 2. The comparisons are between the block diagramsof both projects, the difficulties in constructing and configuring the ground stations (GS), software uploading and updating, costs, support, membership count, the number and distribution of online GSs as of 29 July 2023, the number and frequencies of satellites they (TinyGS and SatNOGS) managed to communicate with up until 29 July 2023, the percentage of satellites (among the operational and supported satellites that TinyGS successfully communicated with) that SatNOGS was able to communicate with, the timeline of GS creation, and limitations and implications. Finally, Section 5 concludes the article.