(Edward Wright) wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ...

I think that NASA sometimes gets this confused. What about X-38? It was
more prototype than research. The research vehicles which preceeded the
mis-named X-38 prototype were all of the NASA lifting bodies flown in the
60's (the shuttle was based on this research as well).

DoD controls the designations, so they could turn down a request from
NASA, if they felt it was inappropriate.

Not really. NASA can call it's craft whatever the heck they feel
like, without asking the DoD's leave.

DoD does not seem to be averse to giving prototypes x- designations, however.
They've done it for anything from the Lancer (a proposed F-104 derivative) to the
JSF prototypes.

The Lancer never received a DoD designation, because the Lancer was
never purchased by the DoD. A variant of the Lancer was considered
for purchase as a test aircraft, and that variant received the
designation X-27.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/x-27.htm)

The JSF candidates received 'X' designations because they were (in
theory) technology demonstrators, not prototypes. (Had the system
been used consistently they should have been XF- rather than X-, but
the X alone has garnered a certain cachet in recent years.)

*Don't* confuse the 'X' mission prefix (XF-, XB-) with the 'X' type
designator. The two mean entirely different things, even if they
aren't always used consistently or properly.
See: http://www.designation-systems.net/u.../aircraft.html

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.