Lego's new Saturn V/Apollo Mission model rocket set


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/04/28/legos-new-saturn-vapollo-mi.html


#2

Sold! That’s going beside my shuttle and ISS block minifigs.


#3

So do those astronauts qualify as microfigs? A friend used to have the old Lunar Module set when I was in Junior High. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k22cUbyLfY


#4

This Lego stuff is too easy! Where are the Revell Models I built as a youth? Where IS THE SNIFFABLE GLUE?


#5

Holy shit.

I thought I was cool when I built the 1121 piece motorized AT-AT (it freakin’ walks!). That took almost an entire day to build and that was a pretty complicated build with its many moving parts.

This looks like an absolute beast to build…

… and I totally want it.


#6

Workhorse?

The Russian R-7 is a workhorse - they’ve made something like 2000 of them since 1957 and they’re still going up today.


#7

I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not to be honest. I mean, yes, it’s a good thing that we have workhorse rockets like the R7, Delta IV, Atlas V that are flying today, but we’ve also had decades of stagnation where only now we’re starting to see more efficient, cost-effective rocket designs enter the fray.

It makes me wish we’d relied a little less on those workhorses and a little more on new engineering instead.


#8

Where was this when I was ten?


#9

I had an Airfix Saturn 5. I loved it. And yes, glue!


#10

You’re still ten, if you close your eyes and remember :wink:


#11

I wonder if this Lego rocket could accept model rocket engines, and if it can whether or not it would survive the round trip from launch to landing. You might have to improvise some sort of chute deployment system to avoid it landing like a ton[1] of bricks, though.

[1] plus or minus a few pounds.


#12

some sort of glue or epoxy, maybe? It’d probably work for a model rocket engine, but I question whether or not the weight distribution would be correct. Plus, stage separation might be a little hard to pull off. :wink:


#13

My brother and I together built the original kit (Monogram; its molds later bought by Revell, I think?)… then some younger visiting relatives DESTROYED it. We were like, NNNOOOOOOOO!!

I particularly loved its tiny Command Module; it had actually had some details inside!


#14

9 posts were split to a new topic: Model rockets rule!


#16

Willing to pay $170+?


#18

Includes Lunar Module stowaway.

“I dunno Neil, it feels sluggish, like we’re overweight somehow.”

ETA: I’ll just include this because I was rereading the transcript. Emphasis mine.

“… If you’re 50 feet up at ‘bingo fuel’ with all of your horizontal rates nulled and are coming down to a good spot, you could certainly continue to land. With your horizontal rates nulled at 70 to 100 feet, it would be risky to land - perhaps giving you a landing at the limiting load of the landing gear. At anything over 100 feet, you’d punch the abort button, say goodbye to the moon, and stew for the rest of your life!”


#22

Well… when it comes down to it, it’s a tube full of explosives with a nozzle on the end. If you find a design that’ll get to orbit without detonating, don’t mess with it.

It’s not rocket science…


#23

God dammit, no. This is the moon lander.


#24

Why don’t NASA use blue bricks? Don’t they know it’s traditional?


#25

Now I’m too practical and have limited space.