# TinyGS vs. SatNOGS: A Comparative Analysis of Open-Source Satellite Ground Station Networks
## 6 Conclusions  
Involvement in one of these projects can be ideal for certain entities, whether enthusiasts or satellite developers. There are various reasons to join one of these projects, primarily due to the numerous implications associated with implementing a network of ground stations. For instance, the costs associated with purchasing, installing, and maintaining multiple ground stations as well as identifying and acquiring suitable locations for ground stations can be significant. Regular maintenance, such as hardware repairs and software updates for these ground stations located at different sites can be challenging, involving lengthy trips. Additionally, establishing a network infrastructure for data processing, storage, and analysis may require the procurement and creation of servers and software applications, respectively. Concerning the decision of which project to engage in, the reader should consider their objectives and circumstances carefully, scrutinize the analyses presented in this article, and subsequently make a decision. For example, if one is new in this field, does not have much knowledge, and wants to join a project, the best choice is probably TinyGS, since building and configuring the GS is relatively easier from the author's perspective. If the objective is to communicate with satellites that are not supported by TinyGS, for example, NOAA 15, then the choice should fall on SatNOGS. If the cost is the most important parameter and one does not have a preference on the type of satellites one wants to communicate with, then TinyGS is probably a better option. If one only intends to capture a large number of satellites, they can consult the frequencies most commonly used by satellites and design their ground station with the most-utilized frequency band. The final choice between the two projects will always depend on one's goals and intentions. In light of this consideration, Table 5 has been compiled to delineate the main strengths and weaknesses of each project, thus aiding the decision-making process. However, it is important to note that both projects offer ample opportunities for learning and enjoyment. In terms of future endeavors, the following initiatives are suggested: updating the provided data is imperative, encompassing ground station information such as geographical distribution and frequency bands as well as satellite data due to the emergence of new satellites and the deactivation of others; conducting a comprehensive study of the online presence of ground stations over time, aiming to discern whether these projects are experiencing an increase, decrease, or maintaining a consistent level of activity; investigating the geographical distribution based on the most-utilized frequencies of the ground stations within each project with the goal of assisting satellite developers in making informed decisions regarding the selection of downlink frequencies for their satellite communication; conducting a comprehensive and more detailed examination of both software platforms, scrutinizing their features, strengths, and areas for improvement with the aim of providing a nuanced understanding of the capabilities and limitations of each software; based on the recommended components mentioned earlier, undertaking a more detailed investigation into the hardware employed in ground stations to identify opportunities for cost-effective improvements in performance with the aim of optimizing the capabilities of the ground station through improvements to the hardware infrastructure. Conceptualization, A.F.d.S. ; Data curation, J.S.G. ; Formal analysis, J.S.G. ; Funding acquisition, A.F.d.S. ; Investigation, J.S.G. and A.F.d.S. ; Methodology, A.F.d.S. and J.S.G. ; Supervision, A.F.d.S. ; Writing--original draft, J.S.G. ; Writing--review and editing, J.S.G. and A.F.d.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.