## 3 Results
### Analysis of Data Received from GlobalStar and Ground Stations  
The obtained information from GlobalStar and different ground stations was compared to assure reliability. To do this comparison we took samples of data collected from the ground stations where the data from GlobalStar were coincident on date and time. Figure 13 depicts charts where the similarity between the data received by RF and GlobalStar is confirmed.  
The telemetry data was collected by both ground stations and GlobalStar. The obtained results show more information via ground stations than via GlobalStar satellites. The GlobalStar data indicated a delay in comparison with the ground station data.  
Figure 11: Temperature variations on internal and external components in November 2021: **(a)** Temperature variations on solar panels \(-\)X and \(-\)Y; **(b)** Temperature variations on solar panels X+ and Y+; **(c)** Temperature variations on solar panels Z.; **(d)** Temperature variations on internal boards of the nanosatellite.  
Figure 12: Voltages and currents of the nanosatellite, captured in September 2021.  
Figure 13: Temperature variations on internal and external components on 11 September 2020 using data from ground-to-satellite link and satellite-to-satellite link: (**a**) Temperature variations on solar  
panels \(-\)X, \(-\)Y and \(-\)Z using data received by GlobalStar; (**b**) Temperature variations on solar panels \(-\)X, \(-\)Y and \(-\)Z using data received by ground stations; (**c**) Temperature variations on internal boards of the satellite using data received by GlobalStar; (**d**) Temperature variations on internal boards of the satellite using data received by ground stations.  
For satellite-to-satellite communication, different packet length configurations were set up. The GlobalStar modem has five options for the packet length starting at 9 bytes with increments of 9 bytes. The biggest packet length is 144 bytes. The sent message containing the housekeeping data of the nanosatellite has a length of 157 bytes and each packet has 2 bytes with information for message reassembling. This means that for a 9 bytes packet length configuration, 23 packets were needed to reassemble the message; and for a 144 bytes packet length configuration, only 2 packets were needed.  
Table 4 presents the result obtained with each packet length configuration. It can be observed that the configuration of 144 bytes per packet has the biggest success rate. Success rate refers to the relationship between received messages and decoded messages. The reason why messages could not be decoded was mainly because fragments were missing and the message could not be reassembled.  
It is important to note that with the smallest packet length configuration (9 bytes per packet), 5246 packets were received, out of which only 145 messages could be identified. However, all these messages were missing fragments, making it impossible to decode them. On the other hand, with the largest message length configuration (144 bytes per packet), 692 packets were received, out of which 135 messages were identified, and only 60 arrived complete.  
The smallest packet length configuration resulted in more valid received packets, however, most of the fragments were lost. When the message was increased, the complexity of reassembling the message at the receiver's end was reduced. This is why, despite receiving more valid packets, very few messages were successfully reconstructed, as many fragments were missing. With the largest packet length configuration, we received fewer valid packets but the probability of recovering the whole message was higher.  
Table 4 shows the results obtained with each of these configurations. As shown, the reception success rate improves as the message length increases. This suggests that less fragmented transmitted messages are less susceptible to loss of data fragments.