# Secure and Transparent Space Exploration Data Management Using a Hybrid Blockchain Model
## 4 Implementation and Experimental Analysis
### Experiment Scenarios
#### 4.2.4 Centralized Database vs. Hybrid Blockchain Performance  
The objective is to compare the performance of our hybrid blockchain system with a traditional centralized database approach in terms of data retrieval speed and transaction throughput, as well as assess the differences in security and functionality. This experiment highlights the trade-offs between conventional and blockchain-based solutions. We set up a standard centralized database (MySQL) to represent the traditional approach to space data management. We loaded it with the same dataset as the blockchain system. We then measured two things on both systems: (a) Data retrieval speed--how many queries per second (QPS) can be handled when reading data records, and (b) transaction throughput--how many write transactions per second (TPS) can be processed. For retrieval, we simulated multiple concurrent read requests to the database and the blockchain. For throughput, we executed sequences of data insertions on the database, and analogously, sequences of transactions on the blockchain. We also qualitatively compared the integrity verification and security aspects: in the database, one typically has to trust the administrator or implement application-level checks, whereas in blockchain, integrity is inherent. Table 3 summarizes the detailed performance comparison between the centralized database and the hybrid blockchain system.  
As seen above, the centralized database drastically outperforms the blockchain in raw speed for both reads and writes. The MySQL server handled thousands of reads per second and over a thousand writes per second without issue, whereas our hybrid blockchain processed on the order of tens or low hundreds at best. However, the qualitative differences are equally important. In terms of integrity and trust, the blockchain system has a clear advantage, which automatically provides integrity verification and non-repudiation. In the database scenario, if someone with high privileges alters or deletes a record, it might be impossible for others to know after the fact; there is no immutable log. In contrast, every action on the blockchain is logged and verifiable. Also, our hybrid approach inherently prevents unauthorized data views, whereas a database relies on a firewall and authentication, which, if misconfigured or breached, could lead to major data leaks. Figure 3 shows the transaction throughput performance of the centralized database compared to the hybrid blockchain under varying concurrent transactions. Table 4 further details the comparative evaluation of Oracle-based and CCIP-based integration methods, highlighting the advantages of the proposed CCIP method in synchronization delay, decentralization,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline
**Experiment Item** & **Centralized DB** & **Hybrid Blockchain** \\ \hline Data Retrieval Speed & 5000 QPS & 200 QPS \\ \hline Integrity Verification & Not possible & Possible \\ \hline Data Tamper Resistance & Administrator-dependent & Cryptographically Guaranteed \\ \hline Transaction Throughput (TPS) & 1000+ & 12.5 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Performance comparison of the centralized database and the hybrid blockchain.  
Figure 2: Transaction throughput comparison: centralized database vs. hybrid blockchain.  
security, and reliability. To visually illustrate the performance trade-off, we compare the average verification times of hash-based methods and ZKP-based verification in Figure 3.