LockheedMartin_SeniorCapstone_Skinker

1 Copyright © 2016 by Virginia Tech
Proceedings of the 2016 ME Senior Design Class: Capstone Realization of Engineering And Technology
CREATE16
May 6, 2016, Blacksburg, VA, USA
2016-09
TEAM #9: LOCKHEED MARTIN Development of an Autonomous Palletized Loading System for
the Squad Mission Support System
Garrett Moore
Mechanical Engineering
Student
Charlottesville, VA, USA
Greg Lawrence
Student
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Chris Lagos
Student
Point Pleasant, NJ, USA
Jeremy Sipantzi
Student
Forest, VA, USA
Ryan Holland
Student
Newport News, VA, USA
Joshua Bell
Student
Warsaw, VA, USA
Robert Skinker
Student
Allentown, PA, USA
Matthew Megyeri
Student
Colonie, NY, USA
Robin Ott
Associate Professor
Blacksburg, VA, USA

ABSTRACT
An issue being faced by today’s armed forces is that
many infantry soldiers are experiencing injuries related to the
repeated stress of carrying heavy equipment. To combat this,
Lockheed Martin has developed the Squad Mission Support
System (SMSS), an unmanned ground vehicle tasked with
transporting a full squad’s supply of gear. The goal of this
project is to develop a Palletized Loading Mission Equipment
Package (MEP) that will allow for the autonomous loading and
unloading of supplies. This system will be integrated as a
removable equipment package onto the existing SMSS
platform.
This Palletized Loading MEP is designed to lift a load
between 800 and 1200 lbs, and to have a systemweight of less
than 800 lbs. The final product weighs roughly 600 lbs with a
pallet weight of 250 lbs. This allows for a maximum equipment
load of 1150 lbs, not including the weight of the pallet.
Hydraulic power stemming from the SMSS onboard pump is
used to provide loading and lifting motion. Four hydraulic
pistons, two on each side of the SMSS operating in parallel,
power the MEP. To control autonomy, Directional Control
Valves (DCV) are used to electronically control outgoing and
returning hydraulic streams, and to extend and retract the four
hydraulic pistons. Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) are used
to track the MEP’s progress during a loading or unloading
sequence. This positional information is used by a
microcontroller to control the MEP’s motion. Following testing
and analysis, this project has a Technology Readiness Level of
5.
The team was split into three subteams: Mechanical,
Power, and Controls. The Mechanical subteamwas responsible
for creating the physical structure of the MEP, running Finite
Element Analysis (FEA), creating the pallet, and attaching the
MEP to the SMSS. The Power subteam was responsible for
creating the hydraulic system needed to move the MEP and
integrating the systemwith the SMSS onboard hydraulic pump.
The Controls subteam created the electronic and computer
interfaces to communicate with the SMSS computers, the
DCVs, and the IMUs.
This report details the design process for the MEP
throughout two semesters. Customer needs and target
specifications created at the beginning guided the design,
development, and validation. Product realization, testing, and
results show the technology readiness level achieved at the
conclusion of the project.
INTRODUCTION
The Squad Mission Support System, or SMSS, is an
unmanned ground vehicle designed by Lockheed Martin for the
U.S. Army. As a support vehicle, it can carry the necessary
equipment needed for a 96 hour mission by a 9 man infantry
squad. Currently, each individual soldier would be required to
carry 80 or more pounds ofequipment. This load dramatically
lowers a soldier’s combat effectiveness and level of readiness
while increasing fatigue, all before the mission even
begins. Ammunition, food,water, communications equipment,
first aid, and an individual soldier’s gear load can all be stowed
aboard the SMSS. The SMSS is rugged with an aggressive
undercarriage, allowing it to maneuver through all but the most
adverse terrain. Although it can be driven remotely, its primary
operating mode is autonomously following
soldiers. Additionally it can follow known routes to a grid
coordinate or find its own way to a destination using advanced
mapping software and utilization of its rugged abilities.
In its current configuration, Lockheed Martin believes
that the SMSS is not versatile enough to meet the needs of
potential customers. As an autonomous vehicle, the SMSS has
a large amount of untapped potential. Virginia Tech
approached Lockheed Martin about sponsoring a design
project, and Lockheed Martin proposed creating a palletized
loading/unloading Mission Equipment Package, or MEP, for
the SMSS. The mission envisioned by Lockheed Martin is a
resupply and support mission, using the SMSS as an
autonomous delivery vehicle. It would require no human
interaction to travel to a destination and drop off its cargo. This
system would ideally lift between 800-1200lbs of equipment,
run on auxiliary power from the vehicle, and autonomously
unload the equipment all while operating in a hostile
environment. This systemcannot interfere with the capabilities
of the SMSS or destabilize it. Finally, in keeping with the
current versatility standards ofthe SMSS,the entire load/unload
system must be removable by a mechanic. Lockheed Martin
believes that this MEP system will dramatically increase the
versatility of the SMSS and its marketability to the U.S.
Military. It is also believes that the SMSS has promising
potential in non-military capacities such as wildland
firefighting and emergency response services. The success of
this project will have a direct impact on the future and viability
of the SMSS program.
NOMENCLATURE
SMSS = Squad Mission Support System
MEP = Mission Equipment Package
PLS = Palletized Loading System (Oshkosh Trucks
Corporation)
IMU = Inertial Measurement Unit
DCV = Directional Control Valve
FEA = Finite Element Analysis
TRL = Technology Readiness Level
RPM = Revolutions per Minute
GPM = Gallons per Minute

BACKGROUND
To initiate design and brainstorming, the team
developed a list of 13 customer needs, which the team
confirmed and refined through direct input from Lockheed
Martin. These needs are shown in Table 1 in Annex A.
Customer need weightings reflect the importance that a certain
aspect of the project has to the customer. Needs with the
highest weight are of greatest impact on the physical
characteristics of the system, which dictates functionality and
programming. These include running on auxiliary power,
unloading and loading a pallet, and securing the pallet to the
SMSS. Creating a system that does not hinder other vehicle
functions was also heavily weighted, but not with the highest
weighting. This is because Lockheed Martin has provided the
team with freedom to rearrange components of the existing
SMSS if necessary. Certain cameras and antennae can be
moved as long as their functionality remains unimpaired in their
new configuration. Side mounted railings and attachment
points, however, were permissively removed
completely. These changes were made without affecting the
autonomous and off road capabilities of the SMSS. The engine
block, any equipment below the cargo bed, and all forward
facing sensors and computers could not be altered due to the
function of the placement. Some additional customer needs
were defined after discussions with Lockheed Martin. These
include ease of use,removability by a mechanic, and automated
pallet identification, which is the ability for the SMSS detect
the contents of what is being loaded/unloaded.
These 13 customer needs were paired with seven
engineering characteristics chosen to define how each need
would be met. The characteristics were each given their own
weighting, based on their correlation to their corresponding
customer need. For example, the engineering characteristic of
‘Weight’ has a high correlation to the need ‘Lift Mission
Essential Packages’, because the systemmust be capable to lift
800-1200 lbs. Additionally, ‘Weight’, has a medium
correlation with ‘Automated Drop Off’ because the system’s
ability to lift is indirectly related to its ability to operate
autonomously. The correlation to ‘Removable by Mechanic’
and ‘Weight’ is low due to any systemthat is attached with non-
permanent mounts can be removed with the proper equipment
and personnel regardless the systems weight. There is no
correlation between ‘Weight’ and ‘Running on Auxiliary
Power’. In this fashion, every customer need was paired with
at least one corresponding engineering characteristic. By
combining this with the customer weightings of needs, an
absolute score was calculated. This provided a numerical
indication of which engineering characteristics were most
important to the overall design. Weight, Power Supply, and
Loading multiple pallet configurations (the SMSS’s ability to
work with a variety of pallet designs) received the highest
scores. Table 1 in Annex A shows the customer needs. The
customer needs provided by the Lockheed Martin Company
pointed the teamtoward modeling the palletized loading system
off of the existing Oshkosh PLS system. The Oshkosh PLS
system is used widely throughout the United States army for
transporting resources. The system required by Lockheed
Martin is on a smaller scale.Turning the SMSS into a palletized
loading systempresented some difficult issues, however these
issues were solvable through observing the PLSin use.The PLS
utilized a two stage loading arm that is capable of folding on
itself. The second stage loading arm creates a moment by
extending the loading arm beyond the hinge of the next joint.
The palletized loading system designed by this team took a
similar approach. The two stage loading arm was instituted,
however, instead offolding on itself the team designed the arms
separated so the pallet would fall between the two sets.
Additionally the method in which the PLS created a moment
for the second stage arms could not be used on the SMSS
loading system due to the geometry constraints. Instead the
team developed a method utilizing an extended arm to push
against the deck of the SMSS to create the needed moments.
Otherwise the PLS and SMSS loading systems are similar in
both task and function.
REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Based on the customer needs and engineering
characteristics discussed in the previous section, the team
developed a set of target specifications to better define the
project design requirements. These specifications are defined
in Table 2 in Annex A. This table breaks down the target
specifications and shows which customer needs they are
derived from. In addition, it defines marginal and acceptable
values for how well each target specification is met. Finally, the
table defines the relative importance of each specification on a
scale from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important). Failing to
meet the marginal value for specifications with an importance
of 3 or greater would mean that the design is unacceptable. As
an example, if the final design was incapable of lifting 800 lbs,
the design would have been deemed a failure. For
specifications with an importance of less than 3, the project
would not be a failure if the marginal value was not
met. However, these specifications were still strongly
considered in the design process.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Before fabrication of the MEP could begin, detailed
analysis of the design had to be conducted. First, FEA of both
the MEP and the pallet during each stage of loading/unloading
highlighted weak areas of the design. The MEP was fully
modeled as a weldment in Autodesk Inventor. Finite Element
Analyses were conducted on the MEP in three critical positions
within its range of motion. In each position, the full load of
1200 lbs was applied by enacting a force of 600 lbs on each
hook mount.

The first position is where the stage 1 pistons are fully
extended and the stage 2 pistons are fully retracted. In this
position, the MEP is making contact with the pallet on the
ground. This position in the FEA is shown in Figure 1. The
max deflection was 0.014 inches,and the max stress found was
in the L-bracket weld joint. It was 32.59 ksi. However, this
was a pinpoint spike in stress that would go away if the mesh
were refined. To see what stresses were really affecting the
system, the probe function was used to determine the highest
realistic stress in this position. That was found to be around 4
ksi. This was in the weld joint of the hook mount. The higher
stresses occurred where Inventor failed to connect a weld
around a corner, causing a sharp edge with a stress peak. Figure
2 shows a close up of where the critical stresses occurthat need
attention.
Figure 1. The MEP underthe full 1200 lb load in the fully
extended position.
Figure 2. The max noticeable stress is in the weld of the clevis
pin hook mount. It’s just under 4 ksi.
The next position analyzed was the upright position.
In this position, the stage 1 pistons are partially retracted and
the pallet has begun to leave the ground. The full 1200 lb load
is still applied in this position. The FEA for this position can
be seen in Figure 3, where the max stress was found to be 56
ksi. This again was a stress peak in a weld, where meshing
helped clear that up. With that, the actual stresses seen in the
MEP in this position were closer to a maximum of 8 ksi, which
is shown in Figure 4. This position has a max deformation in
the centerof the horizontal bar where the hooks mount of .021”.
Figure 3. The upright position under the 1200 lb load. The
stress bar was adjusted to a max of 18 ksi to help illustrate the
noticeable stress points in the piston mounts.
Figure 4. The max stress observed in the upright position
under a 1200 lb load. It occurred in the weld of the piston 2
mount weld.
The third and final position is when the bumper arms
first make contact with the bed of the SMSS. The MEP is then
contacting the SMSS at both the bumper arm and the pin joint.
This position is shown in Figure 5. The pallet is at this point
resting on the edge of the bed of the SMSS. In this position,
under the 1200 lb load, the max stresses were both found in the
clevis pin mount hook, shown in Figure 6. The stress peakwas
108.7 ksi, but occurred where Inventor failed to connect the
welds around the corner, leaving a sharp corner. In the same
weld, however, the max stress was 6 ksi, which is a much more
understandable stress. In this position, the horizontal bar

deflected .03”, which is the greatest deformation seen in any
position,but still very small and has no real effect on the design.
Figure 5. The third position, where the bumper arms first
contacting the SMSS bed.
Figure 6. The max stress in the third position takes place in
the weld for the clevis pin hook mount.
This position has the max stress seen, giving a factor
of safety of 4.5, but a factor of safety this large is acceptable
because as both an off-road and a military vehicle, there will be
many more factors that could affect the vehicle’s stresses and
lower the factor of safety. With that in mind, the MEP was
overdesigned to ensure durability in support of ourtroops. One
part to note is that the stress scales shown in the Figures above
are capped at low numbers such as 4 ksi. This was done to
allow the viewer to see the stress locations more easily. The
number was arbitrarily chosen until the stress colors started to
show. When set to the max stress,which was just a stress peak,
the entire MEP appeared as blue and offered no real visible
guidance as to where the stresses were located. The revised
stress bar accounts for that.
The mission of the use of hydraulics in the team’s
design is to produce movement. This is required to be
completely reversible in order to complete both operational
tasks of loading and unloading. Hydraulics use continuously
flowing hydraulic fluids to create movement. The continuous
flow is produced by a pump that is mechanically aligned with
the onboard engine of the SMSS. The SMSS hydraulic
schematic provided by Lockheed Martin is shown in Figure 13
in the Annex. On board the SMSS, there are several functions
that the systemcompletes. Some of these tasks are cooling and
power production.The critical features of this on-board system:
the Hydraulic Tank (left), the mechanical pump (center), and
the hydraulic cooler (right). In order to implement the team’s
hydraulic systemthe on board tasks and flow cannot be altered.
All key features must be included so the cycle is not distorted.
At the top of Figure 7 the critical features from the on board
hydraulic systemare shown.
Figure 7.This is the team’s hydraulic sketch of the system.The
features included above the dashed line are the critical on board
features while under the line are the added features.
In order to not disturb the flow of the on board system
the team tapped into the mechanical pump utilizing the
auxiliary hydraulic system. The connection to this systemwas
completed through the use of quick disconnect ports.With the
connection to the pump and hydraulic reservoir complete the
flow is spilt by flow dividers to the respective DCV. Each of
the DCV governs the extension and retraction of each cylinder
set, stage 1 and 2. These sets extend and retract in symmetry
because the flows are split evenly between the ports by flow
dividers.
To ensure the on board system was capable of
powering the off board system, the team measured the full
volume of the hydraulic system. The limiting capabilities are
that of the pump’s power and the volume of hydraulic fluid

available in the reserve tank. The pump specifications were
included in choosing possible cylinders for implication,
therefore the pump was not the limiting factor. The total new
volume of the introduced systemcame out to 6.2 gal. This is
well under the limit of the reserve tank with a capacity of 10
gal. The new system is capable of being supported by the
onboard pump and reserve.
The piston speed of extension and retraction is all
relevant to the RPM introduced by the engine.The pumps GPM
flow and the engines RPM have a direct correlation. Therefore
the team chose to run the systemat the ideal RPM 2800. At this
RPM the pump produced a flow rate close to 26.5 GPM.
Knowing the size of the pistons used onboard the SMSS’s
loading system the team was able to model the speed of the
pistons. The results are displayed in figure 8.
Figure 8. Graph of Total time to Extend versus the Speed of
the SMSS’ engine.
Here the models predicted the speeds of the cylinders to be as
follows: Stage 1 for 8.2 sec and stage 2 for 2.1 sec.Due to the
testing environment the team ran the test closer to 1800 RPM
in order to avoid doing damage to the SMSS.
The goal of the controls subteam was to develop a
systemto govern the aforementioned hydraulic and mechanical
systems. Using an Arduino Uno, the controls subteam
developed two primary bodies of code; one to control voltage
to the DCVs and produce movement in the hydraulic cylinders,
and one to convert the feedback from the IMU sensors into
usable angular data in degrees.In order to test these two control
functionalities, two prototypes were created. One prototype
simulated the DCVs with LEDs, allowing the controls subteam
to acquire visual indication that the DCVs were extending and
retracting appropriately. The second system was a wooden
prototype of the MEP itself, which allowed the controls
subteam to test the IMU sensors and develop an algorithm to
accurately retrieve angular position data from them. After
successful test results, the controls framework was deemed
ready for implementation.
PRODUCT REALIZATION
The design of the MEP is based loosely on that of the
Oshkosh PLS in which the MEP incorporates two stages that
move separately to load and unload the pallet. However, the
major difference is that the MEP uses four hydraulic pistons in
which two sets of two move simultaneously. A schematic for
the designed hydraulic layout is shown in Figure 13 of the
Analytical Results section. The two large pistons (stage 1) are
attached to the bed of the SMSS and the upright bars of the
MEP. These pistons are the primary components that allow the
pushing and pulling of the pallet. The remaining two pistons
(stage 2) are attached to the upright bars and the cross bar. To
better illustrate the process, a 3-D rendering of the MEP is
shown Figure 9.
Figure 9. 3-D rendering of the MEP that allows the systemto
load and unload supplies.
To carry supplies,the team designed a simple pallet
that can fit between the arms of the MEP. The pallet is made
out of wood beams that act as a bed for supplies. The wood
beams are attached to a rectangular metal frame with bolts and
nuts. Additionally, the pallet includes a cylindrical bar that
the MEP lifts with its hooks. A 3-D rendering of the pallet is
shown in Figure 10. Additionally, a 3-D rendering of the
MEP and pallet attached to the SMSS is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 10. 3-D rendering of the pallet that can carry a variety
of supplies.
Figure 11. 3-D rendering of the SMSS with the MEP and
pallet.
To design for manufacture of the system, a plan
should be put in place to help reduce the tolerance error that
occurred in the manufacturing and welding of individual parts.
Through testing, the team experienced issues with parts being
slightly off which is one of a couple reasons that caused the
pistons to become asymmetric after each iteration. To reduce
the chances of welding error, a jig should be created to allow
for parts,like the piston mount points,to line up
symmetrically across the arm. For ease of manufacturing and
assembly, the team decided to use bolts and nuts in place of
permanent attachments such as welds. This allows for the
MEP to easily attach to the bed of the SMSS and also be easily
removed. Additionally, the cylindrical pins that are used in
the hinges are secured using cotterpins instead of being
permanently welded into place.
Figure 12. These series of 3 images displays the assembly of
the hydraulic system
From left to right the hydraulic systemplacement can
be observed.In the furthest left image the QD can be seen with
two lines running to the top of the SMSS. One of these lines is
the pump output and the other runs back to the hydraulic
reservoir. The output and input are then split and segregated to
the DCV. The DCV and the flow dividers are sitting on top of
the engine block as seen in the center image. The flows are then
split and sent to the stage 1 and stage 2 piston sets.The stage 1
pistons are lined directly from the DCV. In the right image the
lines for the stage 2 pistons are run underneath the left platform
and then run up the SMSS hinge to the pistons
The mechanical and hydraulic systems are governed
by a control systemconsisting of an Arduino Uno and two 9-
axis IMU sensors. The Arduino receives input form the
computers onboard the SMSS, and actuates the hydraulic DCVs
accordingly. Position and acceleration feedback is reported
back to the Arduino via the IMU sensors, which allows the
control systemto monitor the kinematics of the mechanical and
hydraulic systems.A systemschematic is included in Figure 2,
Annex A. Implementing the control systemwas successful; the
hydraulic systems were successfully controlled, and angular
position was accurately retrieved from the IMU sensors.
The only complication with the implementation of the
hydraulic system was the actual process automation. As the
result of the accumulation of errors from asymmetries present
in the hydraulic and mechanical systems,after each iteration of
the loading or unloading process, the system remained in a
configuration from which it could not easily be moved without
manual control. Due to the strength of the hydraulics, testing a
repeatable algorithm could have seriously damaged the vehicle,
which was a risk that was unacceptably high. As a result, full
autonomy was not implemented in the controlsystem. If system
symmetry is at any point restored through the proposed
solutions discussed above, process automation should be able
to be easily implemented using the control system that was
developed.
A thorough examination of the final MEP design
functionality reveals that customer needs are satisfactorily
fulfilled. This MEP design meets the customer needs by using
SMSS onboard hydraulic and electric power. Directional
control valves allow the MEP to operate through a computer.

Autonomy has not yet been implemented but would only
require communication with the SMSS computer in order for it
to become fully autonomous. It can load and unload a pallet
designed for SMSS compatibility. No permanent attachments
(welds, rivets, etc.) allow the entire systemto be removed by a
mechanic with hand tools. The MEP is constructed with high
strength A-36 steel, commonly used fabrication and welding.
This ensures systemstrength and durability while operating in
a hostile military environment. By loading the pallet between
the MEP arms on the SMSS, the pallet is securely fastened and
cannot unload prematurely.
TEST AND EVALUATION RESULTS
Table 3 in the Annex shows the test plan the team
created. The plan covers all target specifications. The testing
results showthat the accepted and target results were met for all
except the process automation and uneven surface. This is due
to Lockheed Martin removing the autonomy part of the SMSS,
which led to the team not being able accomplish some of the
testable criteria. Because the arrival of the SMSS was delayed
(4/11), testing was limited. The mission essential requirements
however were tested and met at an acceptable and/or exceeds.
Table 4 displays the Technology Readiness Level table. Based
on the table, our product is as a Technology Readiness Level of
5. The product remains to be field tested and some of the
functions,as made evident in the validation plan, have yet to be
fully tested.
The MEP received a validation level of Acceptable for
‘System Weight’. The pallet weighs 250 lbs unloaded and the
MEP weighs about 600 lbs. The total systemweight is about
850 lbs,which is slightly more than the target weight of 800 lbs.
Even so, the maximum payload weight excluding the pallet is
1150 lbs, 300 lbs greater than the weight of the MEP and pallet
combined. Including the pallet, the payload weight is 1400 lbs.
With this result, the Payload ‘Weight’ validation garnered a
score of Exceeds. For ‘Removability’ the design scored
Exceeds, because no permanent attachments were used for the
MEP. All points of attachment are bolted and can be removed
using hand tools.
The hydraulic validations all received positive results.
The ‘Time of Loading’ and ‘Time of Unloading’, as predicted
in the analytical results section,proved accurate. However due
to the failure to achieve complete autonomy the tested time can
only be as accurate as the predictions from the team’s manual
tests. The system would load in under 3 minutes with manual
manipulations (Approximately 2:40), the systemwould only be
accelerated by autonomy.
The controls validations proved problematic due to the
issues of troubleshooting the MEP to a point where it could be
safely automated. The ‘Ease of Use’ was achieved through the
use of the DCV. These valves allowed for a simple
manipulation of the systemand resulted in a validation rating
of ‘exceeds’, with less than three steps to achieve autonomy.
The response to the emergency stop was also tested and
confirmed as ‘exceeds’. The systemcan stop in under a second
(as recorded by hand).
In conclusion, the test results were highly successful.
Seven out of the nine target specifications proved to meet or
exceed expectations, and the two other specifications simply
were unable to be tested given the accumulated errors discussed
previously. However, should these errors be rectified, all of the
analytical work performed during the design process strongly
suggests that the systemwould meet or exceed expectations in
the two untested areas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special Thanks to Professor Robin Ott, our team advisor
and mentor, as she was instrumental to our team’s success. Also
we would like to thank Lockheed Martin Engineer John Massie
for his dedication to the success of this project.

ANNEX A
DESIGN BINDER FORMAT (CLOUD ARCHIVE)
All teams must create a folder structure on Drive, Scholar,
Dropbox, or some other site that contains detailed information
about the design process and outcomes of your design work.
Since the technical paper cannot contain every work detail, use
the design binder to capture more extensive data and
information that should be archived. Historical data, including
past presentations, reports and design reviews are contained
here, as well as new information such as the results of testing.
It is assumed that teams will come up with their own
directory structure for the design binder. It should capture all
significant design milestones throughout the year. A
recommended directory structure is given here:
Folder 1: Weekly status reports
Folder 2: Midterm and final reports
Folder 3: Midterm and final presentations
Folder 4: Design reviews
Folder 5: Detailed design data (solid models, part drawings,
schematics)
Folder 6: Computer code
Folder 7: Test and evaluation data
Folder 8: Media (images and videos)
Folder9: Assembly manual (where applicable) andOperator’s
handbook (where applicable)
Folder 10: Bill of materials with pricing information

TABLES
Table 1. This table shows the Customer Needs matrix. Each customer need is linked with the appropriate engineering characteristic
that would meet the need.
Table 2. Target Specifications based on Customer Needs and Engineering Characteristics. For each metric a marginal and ideal value
were selected.

Table 3: Validation Plan with results. All criteria that was tested was either acceptable or met the target value.

Figures
Figure 1. SMSS on board hydraulic schematic.

Figure 2. Schematic of the integration between control and hydraulic systems on the SMSS.

LockheedMartin_SeniorCapstone_Skinker

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to LockheedMartin_SeniorCapstone_Skinker

Similar to LockheedMartin_SeniorCapstone_Skinker (20)

LockheedMartin_SeniorCapstone_Skinker