# TinyGS vs. SatNOGS: A Comparative Analysis of Open-Source Satellite Ground Station Networks
## 2 Methodology  
During this article, the SatNOGS v2022091000 (Fonte: [[https://gitlab.com/librespacefoundation/satnogs/satnogs-pi-gen/-/tags](https://gitlab.com/librespacefoundation/satnogs/satnogs-pi-gen/-/tags)]([https://gitlab.com/librespacefoundation/satnogs/satnogs-pi-gen/-/tags](https://gitlab.com/librespacefoundation/satnogs/satnogs-pi-gen/-/tags))) and TinyGS v2105260 (Fonte: [[https://github.com/G4](https://github.com/G4) liel0/tinyGS/releases]([https://github.com/G4](https://github.com/G4) liel0/tinyGS/releases)) projects were studied, analyzed, and compared. In the sections \"SatNOGS\" (Section 3) and \"TinyGS\" (Section 4), a presentation of the corresponding projects is made both in terms of general architecture and operation, as well as in the block diagram of the projects' GSs. In the block diagram of the GSs, the minimum components necessary for the system's operation are addressed as well as additional components (e.g., LNA) used for better signal reception. Additionally, the usefulness of each of these components is discussed in order to better understand their function. Then, in Section 5, a comprehensive comparison is made between SatNOGS and TinyGS on various topics. They can be seen in Figure 1.  
First, in Topic 1, the block diagrams of both projects are analyzed and compared. This comparison aims to identify additional constituent parts in one project relative to the other, since these may not only contribute to increased costs but also potentially elevate the difficulty in constructing the GS. Transitioning to Topic 2, a comparison is drawn regarding the difficulty and time required in building and configuring the GS and uploading and updating the software in both projects across various scenarios. This includes considerations such as with and without antenna construction in both projects, as well as with and without the construction of the rotator and controller components (solely for SatNOGS). In the subsequent cost comparison (Topic 3), costs for constructing TinyGS and SatNOGS (both fixed and rotator) GSs were compared. This comparison took into account the recommended components (e.g., LNA, filter) specified by each project, aiming to showcase the varying levels of investment required, since this plays a vital role in an  
Figure 1: Comparisons to be conducted and discussed in Section 5 between TinyGS and SatNOGS. enthusiasat's decision. The costs presented in the following section were based on August of 2023 for Portugal. Moving to the comparison of support and membership (Topics 4 and 5), the support used by both projects was compared at the organizational and practical levels. This consideration was based on the author's experience, which may differ from the reader's perspective. Additionally, the number of members in each project was observed and compared. This involved examining the number of sign-ups on the Libre Space Community for SatNOGS and the number of members provided by TinyGS in its web application. The rationale for this comparison is rooted in the belief that projects with a larger community may offer more resources for addressing user queries. For Topics 6 to 14, all TinyGS data, including GSs details and satellite information, were collected from TinyGS's web application. However, for SatNOGS, the GSs details were obtained from the SatNOGS network API [10] and the satellite details were retrieved from the SatNOGS DB API [11]. GSs' data encompassed their coordinates (latitude and longitude) and frequency ranges, while satellite data covered operational status, downlink frequency, and the number of packets received by GSs from that specific satellite. In Topic 6, the number of GSs online in the last 24 h on 29 July was compared between both projects. At the time of writing, the TinyGS web application only displays the GSs that were online in the last 24 h, so all GSs in that web application were selected.