# TinyGS vs. SatNOGS: A Comparative Analysis of Open-Source Satellite Ground Station Networks
## 2 Methodology
In SatNOGS, the \"status\" parameter of various GSs was observed as well as the last time online for GSs that were offline, and only online GSs and those offline in the last 24 h were selected. Topic 7 compared the geographical distribution of the GSs from the previous section based on their coordinates (latitude and longitude). Topic 8 originally intended to compare the frequency ranges of different GSs mentioned in the last two sections of each project. However, due to the multitude of varied frequency ranges, representing them in a histogram became impractical. Instead of focusing on frequency ranges, the analysis shifted to comparing the bands used by these GSs in both projects, such as UHF. This approach enables satellite developers interested in utilizing these GS networks to identify the bands with the highest number of GSs. Consequently, they can make informed decisions about which bands to utilize for their specific needs. In Topic 9, the number of operational satellites in each project's network which had at least one data reception by GSs as of 29 July 2023 was compared, even if the data were not decoded. It is important to highlight that an operational satellite for the network is a satellite listed as capable of communication, not necessarily a satellite that is literally operational and in orbit. In other words, there could be satellites that are literally operational and in orbit, but if they are not \"operational\" for the network, it is as if that satellite does not exist, and the GSs will never be configured by the network to receive data from that satellite. In Topic 10, the downlink frequencies, also simply referred to as frequencies, of the satellites mentioned in the previous section are observed for each project. Unlike TinyGS, SatNOGS created a histogram with 50 MHz frequency ranges for better visualization. In Topics 11 and 12, the analysis is very similar to Topics 9 and 10, respectively. However, now the focus is on operational satellites with decoded data for the same date, 29 July 2023. The objective of this analysis is to identify the project with the highest number of satellites having their data received by GSs, as well as the frequencies most commonly used by the satellites. This information helps enthusiasts decide which frequency or frequencies to utilize for their GS when considering joining one of the projects. In Topics 13, it was investigated whether SatNOGS could receive and decode data from the same satellites as TinyGS. This was aimed at determining whether the project that received and decoded data from more satellites could do the same for satellites from the other project. Therefore, for example, if SatNOGS is capable of receiving and decoding data from most or all of the satellites that TinyGS managed, it would allow an enthusiast whose goal is to receive data from various satellites to decide whether it is worth joining the latter. Finally, in Topic 14, only the growth of the number of ground stations (GS) in SatNOGS from 2015 to 2023 was observed, as in TinyGS, during the time of writing, it is not possible to access the creation date of GSs that have been offline for more than 24 h. In Topic 15, the limitations and security implications of both projects were mentioned. This methodology ensured a comprehensive and systematic comparison of various aspects between SatNOGS and TinyGS, offering readers a thorough understanding of the projects' differences, strengths, and limitations. The next section will provide a more detailed description of each of the aforementioned topics.