Talk:Rockwell X-30

Lifting body
Does anyone have the later, lifting body version of the X-30?
 * Added pictures. Dabarkey 05:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dimensions ?
With all due respect to its author, I'm convinced that the dimensions quoted from the Astronautix article are highly suspicious. I would suggest to replace them by the dimensions from the graph there : http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm

It would be more like 160 feet long with a wingspan of 74 feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.171.87 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual specifications should be: Length: 150 – 200 ft ; Wingspan: 70 – 90 ft ; Height: 30 – 40 ft ; Weight: 250000 – 300000 lb ; Crew: 2 persons. See this link: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/6591719-rCLsdP/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.171.87 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you find a better source than FAS for that? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We need a source for the Specifications listed - Are these the orginal requirements, from one of the proposals, or the larger manned prototype the USAF wanted ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

X-30 and McDonnell Douglas - evolution of design
I was a member of the McDonald Douglas team that worked on the X-30 in the mid to late-80's. I think the work we did deserves a significant amount of credit for the final design and risk analysis that was part of our effort. For example, the original design was a pointed nose type, as shown in one of the artist's renditions. Later the stub-nose "platypus" design came about as a result of design of experiments and performance optimization tools. Furthermore the computational risk analysis approach was highly regarded by the Air Force. Certainly credit is deserving to Rockwell insofar as being the system integrator, but a significant amount of technology and aerodynamics development, including such things as advances in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and adaptive non-linear control systems, was accomplished by MDC and our teammates. It would be appropriate I think to recognize these contributions to the X-30 project. While the X-30 eventually was not funded, note that some aerodynamic configurations appeared similar (see X-43 design), which suggests to me that knowledge developed by MDC and others as part of the X-30 ultimately made a contribution to downstream projects.

For example, see "Handbook of Intelligent Control: Neural, Fuzzy, Adaptive Approaches", White and Sofge, 1992, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, ISBN 0-442-30857-4, Chapter 11 entitled Flight, Propulsion, and Thermal Control of Advanced Aircraft and Hypersonic Vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimarron77 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for cancellation, and total cost
DARPA estimated total amount spent was $1.6 billion  - Also says "The Air Force, which was providing most of the financing, had already tried to back out, but the National Space Council, headed by Vice President Dan Quayle, recommended [when] continuing work at a slower pace. The target for the first flight of the first experimental version, known as the X-30, was originally 1993 but [in 199??] was pushed back to 1997." - Rod57 (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)