Scheidt, Stephen P. Hudziak, Samuel Morse, Zachary R. 20260415 1.0 raster digital data Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey Scheidt, Stephen P., Hudziak, Samuel, and Morse, Zachary R., Unpu, Cinder Lake Crater Field UAS-derived DEM 2023: U.S. Geological Survey data release. https://doi.org/10.5066/P13W5FTZ Uncrewed aerial system (UAS) imagery was collected over Cinder Lake Crater Field near Flagstaff, Arizona, a training site constructed in the late 1960s as a lunar analog site for Apollo astronauts and continues to serve as an operational analog environment. The DEM supports terrain analysis, visualization, illumination modeling, and mission simulation activities associated with planetary surface exploration research. A total of 504 aerial images were acquired at an altitude of approximately 93.6 m, producing a ground sampling distance of approximately 2.12 cm/pixel and covering 230,000 m² across the study area and surrounding terrain. Imagery was processed using structure-from-motion and multi-view stereophotogrammetry techniques to generate a georeferenced digital elevation model (DEM). Processing included image alignment, camera optimization, dense reconstruction, and surface interpolation. Georeferencing was constrained using GNSS-derived control and survey measurements. The DEM is referenced to WGS 84 / UTM zone 12N (EPSG:32612). The resulting DEM resolves terrain morphology and fine-scale topographic variations across the survey area. The DEM was produced to provide high-resolution topographic data of Cinder Lake Crater Field to support planetary analog research, astronaut and rover operations testing, terrain characterization, and mission planning activities relevant to Artemis lunar surface exploration. The DEM provides a quantitative baseline for terrain analysis, volumetric calculations, and geomorphic studies. Cinder Lake Crater Field is a training site constructed in the late 1960s as a lunar analog site for Apollo astronauts and continues to serve as an operational analog environment. The DEM supports terrain analysis, visualization, illumination modeling, and mission simulation activities associated with planetary surface exploration research. 20230806 ground condition Complete None planned -111.507610 -111.502037 35.309627 35.303513 ISO 19115 Topic Category elevation geoscientificInformation Geophysical Process Impact Product Topography Resource Type Raster USGS Thesaurus geospatial datasets digital elevation models None unmanned aerial system UAS drone GeoTIFF Structure-from-Motion digital elevation model DEM topography USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:69ceb8abb66b01fb592824a3 None Cinder Lake State of Arizona San Francisco Volcanic Field Coconino National Forest None. Please see 'Distribution Info' for details. None. Users are advised to read the dataset metadata thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations. Stephen P. Scheidt NASA GSFC - University of Maryland Associate Research Scientist mailing and physical

Building 34 - Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt MD 20771 USA 571-458-0133 stephen.scheidt@nasa.gov browse_image.png rendered nadir view of Cinder Lake Crater Field PNG his work was supported by funding from the NASA PSTAR award #80NSSC22K1314, the NASA Internal Science Funding Model (ISFM), NASA Goddard Instrument Field Team (GIFT), and also supported by NASA under award #80GSFC21M0002. Research was conducted with permission from the US Forest Service in Flagstaff, AZ. Data processed using Agisoft Metashape Professional version 2.2.0 build 19890; OS: Linux 64 bit; RAM: 124.94 GB; CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 7900X 12-Core Processor; GPU(s): NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Elevation values are derived from structure-from-motion photogrammetric reconstruction constrained by surveyed control and camera alignment. Elevation values are subject to uncertainties related to image geometry, surface texture, and control quality. No additional attribute corrections beyond standard photogrammetric processing workflows were applied. The DEM surface was visually inspected following reconstruction to evaluate surface continuity and reconstruction artifacts. No major logical inconsistencies affecting general dataset use were identified, although localized artifacts may occur in areas of low texture or limited image overlap. Data set is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. The DEM represents terrain covered during UAS acquisition totaling approximately 230,000 m². Areas outside flight coverage are not included. Minor gaps or interpolation artifacts may exist where image coverage or reconstruction quality was reduced. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details. Horizontal positional accuracy of the DEM is estimated from residual errors at 22 ground control points used during photogrammetric bundle adjustment and georeferencing. The root mean square error (RMSE) of the control-point residuals is 5.80 cm in Easting and 4.36 cm in Northing, resulting in a combined horizontal RMSE of 7.26 cm. These values represent the internal consistency of the reconstructed DEM relative to surveyed control used to constrain the model. Independent checkpoint data were not used for positional validation. Vertical positional accuracy of the DEM is estimated from residual errors at the 22 ground control points used during model georeferencing. The vertical RMSE of the control-point residuals is 3.87 cm. This value represents the internal consistency between reconstructed elevations and surveyed control elevations. Independent checkpoint measurements were not used for vertical validation, and therefore the reported accuracy reflects fit to control rather than independent external accuracy assessment. Uncrewed aerial system (UAS) imagery was acquired over Cinder Lake Crater Field near Flagstaff, Arizona, using a nadir-looking Hasselblad L1D-20c digital camera mounted on an unmanned aerial platform. The UAS was flown on pre-programmed autonomous flight lines spaced to provide approximately 70 percent overlap between images from adjacent lines, while maintaining sufficient forward overlap for photogrammetric reconstruction. The camera was triggered at programmed GPS waypoints and image positions were recorded using the onboard single-frequency GNSS receiver, and images were geotagged using these positions. A total of 504 overlapping images were collected on 6 August 2023 at approximately 93.6 m flight altitude, producing a ground sampling distance of approximately 2.12 cm per pixel and coverage of approximately 230,000 m². Images were collected at 5472 × 3648 pixel resolution (20 MP) using a focal length of 10.26 mm (28 mm equivalent) under daylight illumination, with the camera maintained in an approximately nadir-looking configuration using a stabilized gimbal. Survey control was established using temporary ground control points (GCPs) consisting of 1 sq meter black and white checkered ground control targets. GCP coordinates were measured using Emlid Reach RS2 dual-frequency GNSS receivers operating in real-time kinematic (RTK) mode, with rover position corrections received from a nearby static base station via radio link. Corrected GCP coordinates were imported into the photogrammetric reconstruction and used as control markers during bundle adjustment to constrain model geometry and establish georeferencing in WGS 84 / UTM zone 12N (EPSG:32612). 20230806 Dr. Stephen P. Scheidt NASA GSFC - University of Maryland mailing and physical

Building 34 - Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt MD 20771 USA 571-458-0133 stephen.scheidt@nasa.gov Image alignment and reconstruction were performed using Agisoft Metashape Professional version 2.2.0 build 19890, where all images were successfully aligned using High-accuracy processing with generic and reference preselection and guided image matching enabled. Approximately 428,000 tie points were retained after alignment, providing strong geometric constraints for reconstruction. Camera parameters were optimized through bundle adjustment, solving for focal length, principal point offsets, and radial and tangential lens distortion parameters. Adaptive camera model fitting was enabled during optimization. The resulting RMS reprojection error was approximately 0.901 pixels, corresponding to a total reprojection error of approximately {{total_reprojection_error_px}} pixels, indicating strong internal geometric consistency of the reconstructed model. Dense surface reconstruction was performed by generating depth maps for all aligned images using Ultra High quality processing with Mild filtering to preserve terrain detail while reducing noise. Depth maps were merged to produce a dense reconstructed surface containing approximately 572 million points, resolving small-scale terrain morphology across the survey area. A digital elevation model (DEM) was interpolated from the dense reconstruction with interpolation enabled to fill small data gaps and produce a continuous terrain surface. The final DEM dimensions are approximately 23,735 × 31,866 pixels, yielding a spatial resolution of approximately 2.12 cm per pixel, referenced to WGS 84 / UTM zone 12N. The DEM was exported as a georeferenced raster surface suitable for terrain and geomorphic analysis. 20250827 Dr. Stephen P. Scheidt NASA GSFC - University of Maryland mailing and physical

Building 34 - Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt MD 20771 USA 571-458-0133 stephen.scheidt@nasa.gov Raster Pixel 31866 23735 Universal Transverse Mercator 12 0.9996 -111.0 0.0 500000.0 0.0 row and column 0.0212 0.0212 meters World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) WGS 84 6378137.000000 298.257224 WGS 84 Ellipsoid 0.001 meters Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates Elevation Elevation data Producer defined Value Elevation U.S. Geological Survey 1991.718506 2020.878784 Meters U.S. Geological Survey GS ScienceBase mailing and physical

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 United States 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov DEM in Geotiff format Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. GeoTIFF 1.1 32-bit GeoTIFF 1325.4 https://doi.org/10.5066/P13W5FTZ None 20260415 Stephen P. Scheidt NASA GSFC - University of Maryland Associate Research Scientist mailing and physical

Building 34 - Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt MD 20771 USA 571-458-0133 stephen.scheidt@nasa.gov FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998