Is ARCHER dead? We had a positive experience while using it . . .

[blammo]

New poster here . . .

Quick question:  Is ARCHER dead?

I got to this forum after doing some searching on the ARCHER system and read some of the posts about the ARCHER system was being used.  Not all of them were glowing with enthusiasm.

Just wanted to start a new thread (whether ARCHER is dead or not) related to how we were able to get some fairly good results from ARCHER on a couple of missions here locally.

Just to get things going, start here: 

http://gis.ci.stpaul.mn.us/gis/gismo_public/html/?mapbook=/datasets/CONFIGS/SAINT_PAUL/PUBLIC_WORKS/MAPBOOKS/TS/gismo3-river_public.xml

This is a web based mapping interface that we built around some local CAP sortie data captures for local flooding on the Mississippi River.

We here at the City of St. Paul, Mn worked with the local CAP Wing and a local non-profit SharedGeo (which I'm personally involved with) over the course of a couple of years to build out a process for requesting and pushing the data from both the ARCHER system as well as the Oblique photography to GIS and web based users.

Pros:

Generally good turn around times on the missions, and the data for Oblique photos as well as ARCHER collects was provided very quickly. (we did some of our own work in processing the ARCHER data (see notes below).
GPS and related location data was very good where it applied to registration of the photo locations and the ARCHER data.
The requisition process, once ironed out was straight forward and in most instances worked very well.
Was a very cost effective tool for field data collects before, during, and after local flooding events.

Cons:

ARCHER data was a bear to work with.  Big and cumbersome to move.  (see notes about possibly improving this process.
Weather related grounding while uncontrollable, were a sore point with being able to do collects for some emergency responders.
The requesting systems for CAP services are not published very well at all.  We had to act as proxies for all of the sorties that ran locally for all the requesting organizations.

Notes:
We were fortunate to have a local Tech person in the SharedGeo organization that could decipher and reverse engineer the processing software for the ARCHER system.  He got the processing times down to near real-time processing.  If we could have had access to the actual hardware we could have had the GIS data ready upon landing by processing the data on the fly as it was collected.  Some caveats here, we did sacrifice some registration resolution in the ARCHER collects to achieve this level of processing speed, but it was agreed that more work on the processing software would achieve better results over time.

All in all, the process of requesting and publishing these resources was a positive one, and we would like to improve things in the future if possible (partners anyone??) by either improving the ARCHER system and/or replacing the sensor packages in the planes, we have the technical expertise to improve things and have very clear use cases we can apply the results to.

I'm glossing over all this for this poting, there were a lot of little guys associated with these events locally that should be listed.  I'll wait for comments before adding any more to the thread.

Thanks for reading this far.

[Eclipse]

The short answer is yes, its dead.

The systems are being combined as parts break, the GA-8s are being used for other missions such as transport, standard photo missions,
and airborne command platforms, and the focus has been on GIIEP and the sensor balls.

It was not tested, or even mentioned, during the last three wing evals I was involved in (and helped plan) despite my wing have rated operators
and GA-8 pilots, and a plane nearby.  SDIS and GIIEP were where the attention was focused in terms of airborne technology with
standard AP sorties being the lion's share of the work.

The high training requirements for operators and pilots (warranted or not), system weight and need  to have a ground station vehicle
included in missions, not to mention the limited lane of its mission use, seemingly doomed it from the start.

[A.Member]

... we would like to improve things in the future if possible (partners anyone??) by either improving the ARCHER system and/or replacing the sensor packages in the planes, we have the technical expertise to improve things and have very clear use cases we can apply the results to....

As Eclipse stated, it is dead, so no improvements will be coming.  It should also be expected that virtually no resources will be spent maintaining any mission proficiency with the system.

FWIW, I wouldn't hold my breath on SDIS and GIIEP either. 

[arajca]

There is alo the issue the ARCHER was a prototype system, not a production system, so the manufacturer is not supporting it and has refused the let anyone support it, at least for the cables which are a proprietary design. Last I heard there were only five functioning systems left.

[Майор Хаткевич]

How many did we have and how old are they?

I have an NES that is US-001 series, older than me by more than half a decade, and it works like new....

[blammo]

We weren't enamored with ARCHER either, it was there so we worked on using it as the end goal.  In the end, we came to the conclusion that the process needed to be redesigned.  Ideally replacing the sensor package completely would be the best approach (from our perspective)  The whole process of collecting the data from start to finish should be revamped, with specific emphasis placed on making the job of collecting as easy as possible for the operators.

We even discussed at one point the idea of trying to figure out a method for swapping out sensor packages for sortie specific missions, I suppose that is the nirvana design end game, but . . .

Seems like most tech related to GIS for CAP has been hand-me-down things.  Are there any projects being implemented specifically  for CAP (SAR and related) missions, and with a GIS bent to them?  We would like to be more involved in this type of research if resources become available.

[A.Member]

Seems like most tech related to GIS for CAP has been hand-me-down things.  Are there any projects being implemented specifically  for CAP (SAR and related) missions, and with a GIS bent to them?  We would like to be more involved in this type of research if resources become available.

GIS is a very specific need and, to be honest, is not a core competancy or objective for CAP.  Could it be done?  Sure, but the hosting agency would need to fund development and any ongoing support.  It's not one CAP is likely to take on otherwise.

[blammo]

I should have been clearer in the previous posting about GIS related desires.

I'm not suggesting that GIS processes be fielded, although I (we) don't design application that we field to be limited in that aspect, I was pointing towards the aspects of making the field collected data "GIS" ready in an as easy a method as possible, ideally, ready for GIS use upon landing.

While working with the ARCHER data we were able in many instances to turn around and publish the data within hours of receiving it.  formulating compression and data formatting scripts was a big part of simply moving those large datasets around.

In the end, collecting and making the data GIS ready should be a mandate for any spatially related data field collections, whether the data ends up in GIS package or not.  This type of organizational strategy not only provides for a standardized method of storage, it also lends itself to future lookups and indexing mechanisms as well.

[Майор Хаткевич]

A bit off topic, but I know a big issue with large data files is the relatively slow upload speeds compared to download speeds in the US (and compared to the rest of the world, overall as well).

Now I'm wondering, if we fly a mission 500 miles away from where our client needs it, why can't we utilize something like "remote desktop" to let them play with the data on a local machine via the web? At least that way they can still get the data upload/download process going, but can pretty much have access to is as soon as it's loaded on the first computer off the plane.

[Pylon]

As others have alluded to, even if CAP wanted to keep ARCHER around it's not feasible.   Without the manufacturer supporting the system and without any replacement parts being made (and further, they can't be made by third-parties because of patents), as the systems CAP already has break, they go offline forever.

My suggestion would be for CAP to work with its main/major customers and analyze the types of missions and requests we do most frequently, as well as identify areas for mission expansion where there exist customers, and then work with the USAF to procure and fund an imaging/sensor system that fits those needs.