Terrain Data Analysis and Visualization

1. Terrain Data Analysis and Visualization USMA Department of Systems Engineering Terrain Visualization Advisor Cadet Daniel Pate USMA Department of Systems Engineering (845) 515-4417 Daniel.Pate@usma.edu Cadet Aaron Fairman USMA Department of System Engineering (845) 515-4421 Aaron.Fairman@usma.edu LTC Rob Kewley USMA Department of Systems Engineering (845) 938-5206, Fax: (845) 938-5919 Robert.Kewley@usma.edu Cadet Collin Smith USMA Department of Systems Engineering (845) 515-1013 Collin.Smith@usma.edu Cadet Grace Garcia USMA Department of Mathematics (845) 515-5366 Grace.Gaarcia@usma.edu USMA Department of Systems Engineering

2. Agenda • Problem Definition • Background • Assumptions • Cost Analysis • Simulation Findings • Conclusions • Future Work USMA Department of Systems Engineering

3. Problem Definition • Problem Statement: Provide information to assist in creating realistic terrain databases for operational testing of the Army’s Future Combat Systems • Providing adequate, realistic data for mission planning and execution. USMA Department of Systems Engineering

4. Stakeholder Analysis • Key stakeholders listed in bold: • Research, Development & Engineering Command (RDECOM) • Topographic Engineering Center (TEC) • Future Combat System (FCS) • National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) • Tactical Terrain Teams • US Army Soldiers: DIV, BDE, BN, CO, PLs, NCOs • Joint Command and Operations: Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard • Army National Guard and Reserve Component • Possible Civil Applications: Disaster Relief (FEMA), Homeland Security USMA Department of Systems Engineering

5. Integration USMA Department of Systems Engineering

6. Overview • Terrain Databases are used for various military operations. • Constraints: • Network bandwidth • Limited information/intelligence for a given area. • Different data formats between source data and final product. • Designed three different scenarios to test terrain data sufficiency: • Low Level (basic “on-the-shelf” data) • Medium Level (basic data plus significant analysis) • High Level (extensive analysis, additional intelligence) USMA Department of Systems Engineering

7. Functional Hierarchy USMA Department of Systems Engineering

8. Camp Shea USMA Department of Systems Engineering

9. Value Hierarchy USMA Department of Systems Engineering

10. Operational Scenarios Assumptions for Different Scenarios • Low Level • Less than a week’s notice before the data is given to the commander. • Only imagery available will be off-the-shelf data. • Not detailed • Medium Level • Four weeks of contingency planning time was available prior to the operation • Better imagery will allow for elevation, precise base images, apparent large features. • High Level • Air and Ground control over the area for at least two months. • Availability of LIDAR collection equipment and cameras USMA Department of Systems Engineering

11. Levels of Detail USMA Department of Systems Engineering

12. Low USMA Department of Systems Engineering

13. Low (close up) USMA Department of Systems Engineering

14. Medium USMA Department of Systems Engineering

15. Medium (close up) USMA Department of Systems Engineering

16. High USMA Department of Systems Engineering

17. High (close up) USMA Department of Systems Engineering

18. Assumptions Data Generation Assumption • A Team can produce a Medium Density product given: • 8 hour working days (Monday-Friday) • Minimal breaks • Trained Professionals who know how to create the database • Teams of 4 analysts are constantly available • Urban area that is 15 x 15 kilometers with a 3 to 4 kilometer “suburban” area USMA Department of Systems Engineering

19. Cost Data Matrix USMA Department of Systems Engineering

20. Digital Terrain Elevation Data(DTED) • From DTED 5 to 1 the storage space required decreases to between 8-10% of the previous level. • Only about a 24 hour difference in man hours between best and worst. • Biggest concern is Operational status pre-deployment to boots on ground. USMA Department of Systems Engineering

21. Level Effectiveness USMA Department of Systems Engineering

22. Cost Analysis USMA Department of Systems Engineering

23. Conclusion (Data Analysis) • Data Development • Feature layers are manpower intensive • Roads, vegetation, and urban areas are easiest to create • Marshes, streams, and rivers are most difficult to create • Categorization of urban areas requires human intelligence • Analyzed Elevation in the Cost Analysis • Level 1 to Level 2 • 55% Increase in Value for a 10% Increase in Storage Cost • Level 2 to Level 3 • 25% Increase in Value for a 90% Increase in Storage Cost • Analyst Hours stay constant throughout Cost Analysis. USMA Department of Systems Engineering

24. Future Work • Continue to Analyze the Cost versus Value • Individual attributes at varying levels of detail • Individual cost for varying attributes • Advisor and LTC Hendricks will continue work in Ft. Bliss • Move to gain an understanding between FCS and TEC USMA Department of Systems Engineering

25. Questions USMA Department of Systems Engineering