# Ionospheric Weather at Two Starlink Launches during Two-Phase Geomagnetic Storms
## 2 Data Processing Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \(X\) & **JPLR1** & **JPLR2** & **CODE1** & **CODE2** & **BUAG1** & **BUAG2** & **CASG1** & **CASG2** \\ \hline \(Y\) & & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**3–5 February 2023**} & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{JPLR} & \(-0.41\) & \(-0.61\) & & & & & \(R^{2}\) \\  & \(0.106\) & \(0.113\) & & & & & \(RMS\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{CODE} & & \(-1.50\) & \(-1.31\) & & & & \(R^{2}\) \\  & & & \(0.133\) & \(0.128\) & & & \(RMS\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BUAG} & & & & \(-1.25\) & \(-0.45\) & & \(R^{2}\) \\  & & & & \(0.125\) & \(0.100\) & & \(RMS\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{CASG} & & & & & \(-0.62\) & \(-0.46\) & \(R^{2}\) \\  & & & & & \(0.101\) & \(0.095\) & \(RMS\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**7–9 July 2022**} \\ \hline JPLR & \(-1.25\) & \(-1.68\) & & & & & \(R^{2}\) \\  & \(0.097\) & \(0.106\) & & & & \(RMS\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{CODE} & & \(-4.98\) & \(-0.99\) & & & \(R^{2}\) \\  & & \(0.153\) & \(0.088\) & & & \(RMS\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BUAG} & & & & \(-1.54\) & \(-2.47\) & & \(R^{2}\) \\  & & & & \(0.096\) & \(0.112\) & & \(RMS\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{CASG} & & & & & \(-1.00\) & \(-2.67\) & \(R^{2}\) \\  & & & & & \(0.086\) & \(0.116\) & \(RMS\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: \(R^{2}\) and \(RMS\) deviations for the different pairs of \(GEC\) observed and relevant 1- and 2-day forecast during geomagnetic storms on 3–5 February and 7–9 July 2022 starting from the day of the Starlink launches. Figure 6: The same as Figure 5 but from 6 to 9 July 2022, including the Starlink S-49 launch. real-time UADG data observed \(-\)15 min prior to the launch with 'forecast' from 6 to 48 h ahead starting afterwards. We see the diversity of NN forecasts, which differ from the 'true' storm profiles failing to fit the positive and negative _GEC_ 'true' excursions. As distinct from Figure 7(a1)-(b2), the same NN forecasts are plotted in Figure 8(a1)-(b2) but using UQRG 'true' data for the day before the launch (prestorm day) and fitting 6, 12, 18, 24 and 48 h 'forecast' starting from 00:00 UT on the day of the launch. Here, 24 h forecast appears to better reproduce part of the positive storm effect on 3 February (blue curve) and 48 h forecast (cyan) closer to approaching part of the 2 nd positive storm peak on 4 February. The other options differ from the 'true' storm profiles for both the S-36 and S-49 events. Figure 8: The same as Figure 7 but forecast start at 00:00 UT on the day of the Starlink launch linked to the presform day of UQRG. Figure 7: Comparison of ‘true’ UQRG and real-time UADG _GEC_ with Nearest-Neighbor (NN) ‘forecast’ for 6, 12, 18, 24 and 48 h in advance. Forecast starts at the time of the Starlink launch (thick vertical line) linked to the real-time UADG data: (**a1,a2**) S-36; (**b1,b2**) S-49 launch. The numerical values of \(R^{2}\) and \(RMS\) for the NN 'forecast' (\(X\)) are produced using Equations (4)-(6) to estimate their consistency with 'true' UQRG and UADG data (\(\gamma\)) (Table 5) for the storms on 3-5 February and 7-8 July 2022. Though the better fit of forecast to the 'true' \(GEC\) is observed for the part of storm time in Figure 8, the results of Table 5 for the total storm hours during 3-5 February and 7-8 July reveal an appreciable difference between the NN forecast (\(X\)) and true (\(Y\)) data according to \(R^{2}\) negative results.