## 5 Conclusions  
PlanetiQ's RO mission, as illustrated through the GNOMES satellites, strives to establish the world's most advanced atmospheric observing system. This is achieved by deploying cutting-edge RO sensors to ensure precise and frequent measurements, ultimately enhancing global weather forecasting capabilities. The present research's objective is to investigate the temporal and spatial distribution of observations and evaluate them by comparing them to atmospheric data from the COSMIC and NWP models. The mission aims to deploy 20 RO satellites, each generating 2500 ROE per day, for a total of 50,000 ROE per day across the constellation. Data from the GN02, GN03, and GN04 satellites reveal average observation numbers of 1099, 1313, and 1843 ROE/day, respectively. The daily occurrence of observations by the satellite constellation exhibits a generally well-distributed pattern, with minor shortages reported in the equatorial and Polar Regions. The pressure, temperature, WVP, and refractivity profiles of PlanetiQ were compared to those of COSMIC profiles. A detailed assessment of differences was carried out using statistical analyses, including the f-test and \(t\)-test. Single-profile comparisons at specific checkpoints reveal reasonable differences within acceptable ranges. Multi-profile comparisons across various checkpoints further corroborate the insignificance of differences between variables and observation variances. Additionally, differences between observation variables and GFS/ECMWF NWP models were evaluated to ensure compatibility. The statistical tests demonstrate no significant differences between PlanetQi profiles and NWP model variances and observations, with the exception of a single point in the WVP profiles. This discrepancy is attributed to the interpolation methods used in deducing WVP values in the NWP models. In conclusion, while the number of RO observations per satellite is substantial, it has not yet reached the desired quantity. The spatial and temporal distribution of observations is generally satisfactory, with minor deficiencies in equatorial and polar areas. Insignificant differences from COSMIC profiles affirm the high-definition quality of the collected data. Except for a justifiable variation in WVP, the differences with NWP models are mostly insignificant. Conceptualization, I.F.A. ; Methodology, I.F.A., M.A. and M.S.Y. ; Software, I.F.A. and M.S.Y. ; Validation, I.F.A. and M.S.Y. ; Formal Analysis, I.F.A., M.A. and M.S.Y. ; Investigation, I.F.A. and M.A. ; Resources, M.A. ; Data Curation, I.F.A. and M.S.Y. ; Writing--Original Draft Preparation, I.F.A. ; Writing--Review and Editing, M.S.Y. and M.A. ; Visualization, M.S.Y. and M.A. ; \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**PlanetiQ Observations** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Model**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**f-Test \(p\) Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**T-Stat**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**T-cr.**} \\
**(Filestamp)** & & & **(Pres., Temp., WVP, Ref.)** & **(Pres., Temp., WVP, Ref.)** \\ \hline GN02.2023.100.00.10.R20 & GFS & 0.98, 0.4, 0.00, 0.98 & \(-\)0.015, 0.82, 8.4, \(-\)0.02 & \\  & ECMWF & 0.96, 0.17, 0.00, 0.94 & \(-\)0.05, 0.01, 8.4, \(-\)0.08 & \\ \hline GN02.2023.125.00.44.E11 & GFS & 0.98, 0.87, 0.6, 0.99 & 0.03, \(-\)0.16, \(-\)0.51, 0.01 & \\  & ECMWF & 0.99, 0.95, 0.66, 0.99 & 0.02, \(-\)0.07, \(-\)0.45, \(-\)0.01 & \\ \hline GN03.2023.200.12.47.G27 & GFS & 0.9, 0.98, 0.33, 0.89 & \(-\)0.12, 0.02, 0.98, \(-\)0.135 & \\  & ECMWF & 0.95, 0.99, 0.87, 0.93 & 0.05, \(-\)0.02, 0.17, 0.08 & \\ \hline GN02.2023.250.00.04.G12 & GFS & 1, 0.92, 0.18, 0.99 & 0.00, \(-\)0.1, \(-\)1.33, 0.01 & \\  & ECMWF & 0.99, 1, 0.52, 0.99 & \(-\)0.01, 0.00, 0.64, 0.01 & \\ \hline GN02.2023.300.00.25.E09 & GFS & 0.93, 0.58, 0.09, 0.88 & 0.09, \(-\)0.54, 1.7, 0.02 & \\  & ECMWF & 0.93, 0.69, 0.62, 0.92 & 0.08, \(-\)0.39, 0.49, 0.1 & \\ \hline GN02.2023.350.01.00.C44 & GFS & 0.99, 0.92, 0.87, 0.95 & 0.01, 0.01, 0.15, 0.05 & \\  & ECMWF & 0.97, 0.93, 0.87, 0.93 & 0.02, \(-\)0.02, 0.17, 0.06 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}