Review: 42182 NASA Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle - LRV
Posted by Huw,
Among the abundance of cars in this year's Technic assortment is a 4-wheeled vehicle that cost tens of millions of dollars to make, was driven for just a few miles, then abandoned when it was finished with.
42182 NASA Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle - LRV is a roughly 1:8 scale model of the vehicle used to explore the moon in the early 1970s.
Summary
42182 NASA Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle - LRV, 1,913 pieces.
£189.99 / $219.99 / €219.99 | 9.9p/11.5c/11.5c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
An interesting model but it comes at a high price
- Clever unfolding mechanism
- Appears to be accurate
- Superfluous stands
- Hybrid Technic/System build may put off Technic purists
- Astronomically expensive
- Large stickers
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
The prototype
The model is based on the Lunar Roving Vehicles that were deployed on the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions in 1971 and 1972, specifically LRV-3 used on the latter.
Built by Boeing, they were transported folded, then unpacked, used for a few hours, and left on the moon at the end of the mission.
By NASA/Dave Scott.
New parts and stickers
The wheels of the vehicle are like nothing LEGO has produced before so new moulds have been needed for the tyres, and possibly the wheels too. There's a slight difference in colour between them, but the hub is covered by a 6x6 dish, so it's not noticeable on the model.
The real tyres had titanium chevrons on the contact area and that has been faithfully replicated here.
A new piece was also needed for the dust guards mounted above the wheels. They are printed with the American flag which is displayed at the front and back of the vehicle, so left- and right-handed variations have been needed.
The set's three sticker sheets are dominated by four huge 8x16 decals for information plaques.
Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV-3) fully loaded
The model has a wheelbase of 27cm which, when compared to the 2.3m of the real vehicle, correlates to a scale of 1:8.5.
It has four-wheel suspension and front and rear wheel steering which can be used to achieve a tight turning circle, or each axle can be decoupled independently to give only front or rear-wheel steering. Steering is accomplished by pushing a lever between the seats from side to side.
The wheel hubs are covered by silver 6x6 dishes printed with white and black lines, presumably there to be able to tell when they are rotating.
Equipment is loaded onto the front and back as three separate subassemblies which I will describe below.
The seats on the LRV were made from nylon webbing and here lightsabre blades and Technic connectors have been used to create its interwoven appearance. It's fairly effective, but fiddly to construct.
Lunar deployment
The LRV was transported to the moon in a folded up configuration then deployed to the lunar surface using ropes and pulleys, and much of its reconfiguration to a drivable vehicle was automatic.
This NASA article provides information about this, but it doesn't explain whether the communication and exploration equipment was on it already or whether it needed to be loaded up once on the moon.
In this set there are four separate assemblies: the rover itself, then three others with the equipment which are added once it's been unfolded.
The LRV
When fully folded, it looks like this. Although the wheels are laid flat, it would appear that that was not the case when the real vehicles were transported to the moon, as seen in this picture.
To reconfigure it, first the front and rear axles need to be folded outwards, then the wheels rotated 90 degrees. Pins behind each one are moved to hold them in this position.
Then, once the axle assemblies have been folded to a horizontal position, four more pins are pushed inwards to lock them in place.
Finally, the seats and footrests are unfolded, and the control panel adjusted to complete the deployment process.
One of pins holding the axle assemblies -- moved in and out using the red ball joint --and also one of the levers (red toilet roll panel) used to lock the steering can be seen in this picture.
Aft pallet assembly
This is loaded with tools and containers for collecting samples, and the rock samples too, including 'Big Muley', a ~12Kg rock collected by Apollo 16.
The tools are easily removed and, in fact, there are more than I've taken off for the photo, held in place by the brown pieces.
Lunar commutations relay unit
This was used for communications when away from the lunar module. The actual antenna and cameras are mounted on the centre of the rover so I presume this is just the battery pack.
Forward chassis
This assembly also includes communication equipment, batteries and a TV camera which was remotely controlled from Earth.
Raising its three hinged flaps reveals stickered equipment panels, insulated from the harsh lunar environment by gold stickers.
Display stands
Two stands are provided to enable the four assemblies to be displayed separately, with an information plaque describing what each one is.
It is virtually impossible to apply four large stickers flawlessly without air bubbles or dust underneath them, which will end in frustration.
Verdict
This is certainly an interesting model and very different to other 4-wheel vehicles in this year's assortment. The LRV itself appears to be fairly accurate, and the mechanism to unfold and reconfigure it is well executed. The equipment it carries also appears to be realistic, largely due to the fact it's been built with copious System pieces, which might not please Technic purists.
I do wonder why you'd want to display it on the stands, as shown in the picture below, rather than in its unfolded configuration, though. The stands have introduced four large stickers that are impossible to apply perfectly, inflated the piece count and pushed up the price, arguably unnecessarily.
The wheels, tyres and dust guards have been developed specially for this model and, given their extremely specialist nature, I suggest that it's unlikely that they will be used in any future models. The development and mould costs therefore have to be recouped solely from sales of this one, which may go some way to explaining why its price is so astronomical.
$219.99, £189.99, €219.99 for 1,900 pieces compares very unfavourably with many of this year's Technic sets, so unless you're an Apollo mission fan that needs it straight away, I'd wait for a healthy discount at Amazon, or give it pass and look elsewhere in this year's Technic assortment for something that's better value.
124 likes
70 comments on this article
That's one cool dune buggy!
Absolutely loved the Dinky version in 1972 and love this one even more. The four wheel steering always fascinated me. There's just one big problem with this Lego version, and that's that I'm not sure I'll be patient enough to wait for the inevitable discount!
It seems really strange to complain about added (and accurate) functionality but I agree 100%. It's so interesting but also rather unnecessary, the alternate display features anyway. The subject matter is right up my alley...but the price is just too much and knowing a portion of the cost goes to superfluous stuff I won't build or display...that's a hard pass. Great review. And because I saw it mentioned / suggested elsewhere, is the 31152 Astronaut the same rough scale?
I'm a huge NASA fan, but will be passing on this due to the price.
Okay, I gotta ask: why is this considered 'Astronomically expensive' at 9.9p per part, while the McLaren P1 was considered 'Reasonably priced' at 10.0p per part?
I do agree that the alternative 'museum' display option probably isn't necessary and maybe bumped up the price; that said, while I'm a Technic guy first and foremost, I'll probably be picking this one up (once it's inevitably discounted) as a Space set first, to display alongside the other Apollo sets, so it is nice to have that option.
It is lovely to see the foldaway mechanism hasn't prevented the addition of suspension and steering, both of which I imagine would have been omitted (or compromised in some way) had this been an Icons set.
Wasn't it supposed to fold up into a VW Beetle.....
Fake buggy for a faked trip to the moon.... ;)
4 plaques is excessive. Hard pass.
4 plaque stickers? Are they insane!?
It looks neat, but I don't have any other NASA sets of recent release, so I'm not about to start now. I think I have a space shuttle set from the early 90s maybe.
Either way, clever designers strike again.
@BrickHelix said:
"4 plaque stickers? Are they insane!?"
Lunacy indeed.
It's a shame about the stickers and I don't care about the stands, but other than I still very much like what I see. Sure, it is way overpriced, but as others have already mentioned, this still seems better value to me than that McLaren P1. And overall just a more interesting model. Looks good and has great functionality!
@rainstorm26 said:
"Fake buggy for a faked trip to the moon.... ;)"
Fake moon hanging above a flat earth.
@magpie9 said:
" @rainstorm26 said:
"Fake buggy for a faked trip to the moon.... ;)"
Fake moon hanging above a flat earth."
But is it at least made from real cheese?
@WizardOfOss said:
" @magpie9 said:
" @rainstorm26 said:
"Fake buggy for a faked trip to the moon.... ;)"
Fake moon hanging above a flat earth."
But is it at least made from real cheese?"
Wasn’t that settled by Wallace and Grommit?
If they were going to go to the trouble of having a “folded up” display option, why not make that accurate too? (Assuming the rover was folded the same way on Apollos 15 and 17)
NASA's Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was first used on the moon on July 31, 1971 during the Apollo 15 mission.
Very cool.
I appreciate how it can fold up for transport, but the satellite dish just looks off to me. Wish they could have made that look closer to the original.
Yay, the first double bingo of price and stickers for a while.
Though I guess the price complaint was mainly to use the astronomically 'joke'.
@gunther_schnitzel said:
" @BrickHelix said:
"4 plaque stickers? Are they insane!?"
Lunacy indeed."
Lunar-cy surely?
@jh84007 said:
" @gunther_schnitzel said:
" @BrickHelix said:
"4 plaque stickers? Are they insane!?"
Lunacy indeed."
Lunar-cy surely?"
Kudos.
It's about time someone popped up there and bought them back. I wonder how much a Lunar Rover would go for on webuyanycar.com!
The price seems wild. I was looking at it thinking "I wonder if it costs more than $100" and then... $220??!!?! I have most of the other big NASA sets as well as 31152 and am gonna hard pass on this one.
I like it. It's not at the top of my list, but it is on my list, and I will definitely follow the strategy of waiting for a discount. The price doesn't seem -that- far beyond expectation for what you're getting.
I'm curious, what does everyone think a reasonable price would be? It's not licensed, and many of the parts are standard, small Technic parts, but there are also some new molds and printed pieces. Looks to be about $180's worth to me. $200 would be reasonable enough, and $220 just feels like the standard "inflation" markup.
Also, happy landing anniversary!
@WizardOfOss said:
" @magpie9 said:
" @rainstorm26 said:
"Fake buggy for a faked trip to the moon.... ;)"
Fake moon hanging above a flat earth."
But is it at least made from real cheese?"
I mean, the alternative is fake cheese, so I hope so.
Since this is nearly a 1:8 scale can we add it to the super car line up? It is the most expensive (the real one) and exclusive vehicle in this scale!
@Wiseman_2 said:
"Okay, I gotta ask: why is this considered 'Astronomically expensive' at 9.9p per part, while the McLaren P1 was considered 'Reasonably priced' at 10.0p per part?
I do agree that the alternative 'museum' display option probably isn't necessary and maybe bumped up the price; that said, while I'm a Technic guy first and foremost, I'll probably be picking this one up (once it's inevitably discounted) as a Space set first, to display alongside the other Apollo sets, so it is nice to have that option.
It is lovely to see the foldaway mechanism hasn't prevented the addition of suspension and steering, both of which I imagine would have been omitted (or compromised in some way) had this been an Icons set."
NASA doesn’t charge licensing fees. McLaren does.
Expensive? yes. But this is Lego, they decided to raise their price like there is no tomorrow and now there are huge discounts on amazon. Before (this year), the highest discount you could get in Canada was 20%ish (there were extremely rare cases where we could get 30% on very lame sets). Nowadays, 30% is fairly common and I bought a set yesterday at 55% off.
I will get this set. Like @sjr60 I will try my darnedest to wait for a rebate (not quite sure if this is a Lego exclusive). I do not understand the idea of not wanting system parts in a Technic set. Have you ever had a look at: 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857 and 858? Those are the original Technic sets (Expert Builders) - they all have significantly more 'System' parts than 'Technic' parts. Anyway, to each their own...
The stands are definitely a bummer and totally unnecessary but what can you do? Sometimes Lego get it right, sometimes they don't. I will still get it eventually.
Maybe (I don't know, I did not check) they(NASA) improved the design slightly and were able to save quite a bit of space by folding the wheel completely for Apollo 17.
EDIT: On all the pictures I managed to find, the wheels were not flat. That said, maybe all the pictures I looked at were of mission 15.
I would get this except that, ironically, I don't have space for it.
Breaking the interesting final set down to 4 odd looking subassemblies for separate display makes no sense to me. If it wouldn’t be the way we’d display it in real life at a museum, then it won’t likely be how I display it at home.
Folks already complain that technic super cars gear shifting is not much of a function. Who in their right mind then will find enjoyment folding and unfolding their moon pie?
Can it be displayed unfolded and fully loaded on the LRV stand, or are all four of them impossible to use once it's been unfolded and set up?
I expect a big part of the cost of the set is the cost of the tires and wheel arches. Both are very specific to this vehicle so existing parts might not suffice, but these new molds are unlikely to see use again so this individual set has to bear the whole cost.
Probably the ugliest Lego set in a while
I think this set is terrific! It's a perfect example of what Technic should be, except that the price tag is rather daunting.
Thanks for the review. I agree that it's way overpriced - but I also have to point out that it's the same price as the McLaren F1 car 42171. That set is just another car and has 300 fewer parts; it's far less interesting than this one. I don't understand why that one wasn't also considered absurdly overpriced?!
I doubt I'll get this - there are too many other sets vying for my increasingly limited space - but it does seem like an interesting set at least. The McLaren though? Meh. It's not been a good year for Technic sadly.
@danishbricklayer said:
"Thanks for the review. I agree that it's way overpriced - but I also have to point out that it's the same price as the McLaren F1 car 42171. That set is just another car and has 300 fewer parts; it's far less interesting than this one. I don't understand why that one wasn't also considered absurdly overpriced?!
"
Probably because we haven't reviewed it yet!
I like the folding mechanism. I recently bought a folding bike and I and no idea the astronauts had to deal with something similar. It's a good fit for technic for that function alone.
I just wish they could have provided something for the satellite dish. It looked weird to me when it was released, and now that I see what it looked like IRL I'm even more baffled.
By the way, I appreciate the reference images! They helped a lot.
Very appropriate to post the review on the fifty-fifth anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. As far as the set goes, I do like it, but I probably won't be getting it, mainly due to lack of space, and the build looks difficult, considering that I don't have full use of my left arm and hand. And while I love the folding function, I agree that having four plaques is excessive.
@ChocolateCrisps said:
"Can it be displayed unfolded and fully loaded on the LRV stand, or are all four of them impossible to use once it's been unfolded and set up?"
I suspect most people will display it unfolded, as per the lifestyle promo pics.
https://images.brickset.com/sets/AdditionalImages/42182-1/42182_lifestyle_envr_03.jpg
The price is unfortunate—$290 in Canada. It goes on my wait-for-a-discount list, but I do like it because it will fit in with the other NASA sets.
Four large plaques does seem over the top, and weren't we recently tending towards printing plaque pieces? The stands do seem superfluous—I wonder if they were included to get the set up to a given price point.
@danishbricklayer said:
"Thanks for the review. I agree that it's way overpriced - but I also have to point out that it's the same price as the McLaren F1 car 42171. That set is just another car and has 300 fewer parts; it's far less interesting than this one. I don't understand why that one wasn't also considered absurdly overpriced?!
"
Exactly this! The review is way too harsh for something as cool and function rich as this LRV. So many new parts and printed ones too. The plaques and stands are just a bonus to make it display well next to the other NASA sets. To me this is the most interesting and best Technic set of the year! The hypercars and all the basic race cars we are getting every year are not the spirit of Technic. I am glad Technic showcased some cool new Space sets this year. Hope it's not the last. With the comeback of fiber optics I really hope for a revamped 8480 Space Shuttle.
Oh the sweet irony. Obsessive complaints about the 'superfluous' stands while, at the same time, complaints that they have stickers rather than prints!
I don't know if it's mentioned in the booklet so being "an Apollo fan" I'd like to remind that the LRV was invented by the team at Boing, whose leader was Polish engineer Mieczyslaw Bekker.
Just to be clear, almost ALL lego is overpriced. By design, as retailers must be able to discount it. If you buy a set at rrp you are living in an area where there isnt much competition between stores, are impatient because you want it at day 1, getting a lego (store/site) exclusive without good gwp or points, or you dont know what you are doing.
Even temu sells real lego at 30% off (damaged boxes or whatever but they are real).
@sjr60 said:
"Oh the sweet irony. Obsessive complaints about the 'superfluous' stands while, at the same time, complaints that they have stickers rather than prints!"
Not to mention someone complaining about the complaints. I could never have predicted that.
@Jelonek76 said:
"I don't know if it's mentioned in the booklet so being "an Apollo fan" I'd like to remind that the LRV was invented by the team at Boing, whose leader was Polish engineer Mieczyslaw Bekker. "
Boing
@Andrusi said:
" @Jelonek76 said:
"I don't know if it's mentioned in the booklet so being "an Apollo fan" I'd like to remind that the LRV was invented by the team at Boing, whose leader was Polish engineer Mieczyslaw Bekker. "
Boing"
Boring or Boeing?
@Andrusi said:
" @Jelonek76 said:
"I don't know if it's mentioned in the booklet so being "an Apollo fan" I'd like to remind that the LRV was invented by the team at Boing, whose leader was Polish engineer Mieczyslaw Bekker. "
Boing"
Spring is in the air....
"The wheels, tyres and dust guards have been developed specially for this model and, given their extremely specialist nature, I suggest that it's unlikely that they will be used in any future models."
It's LEGO, Nature will find a way.....
@Blockwork_Orange said:
" "The wheels, tyres and dust guards have been developed specially for this model and, given their extremely specialist nature, I suggest that it's unlikely that they will be used in any future models."
It's LEGO, Nature will find a way....."
Indeed... who expected to find Porsche rear wings on a typewriter!
I would rather have used some other parts to complete a decent com dish than using them for useless display stands. Thank you for the review.
@Blockwork_Orange said:
" "The wheels, tyres and dust guards have been developed specially for this model and, given their extremely specialist nature, I suggest that it's unlikely that they will be used in any future models."
It's LEGO, Nature will find a way....."
That's why, this set should have been representing the LRV of Apollo 15. Then Lego could have subsequently used the parts for the LRV of Apollo 16 and then the one of Apollo 17. ;-)
I'll see myself out...
(mind you people buys all sorts of copies of X-Wing fighters and Millenium Falcons, why not a few LRV??)
@HOBBES said:
" @Blockwork_Orange said:
" "The wheels, tyres and dust guards have been developed specially for this model and, given their extremely specialist nature, I suggest that it's unlikely that they will be used in any future models."
It's LEGO, Nature will find a way....."
That's why, this set should have been representing the LRV of Apollo 15. Then Lego could have subsequently used the parts for the LRV of Apollo 16 and then the one of Apollo 17. ;-)
I'll see myself out...
(mind you people buys all sorts of copies of X-Wing fighters and Millenium Falcons, why not a few LRV??)"
LRV-1 (Apollo 15) and LRV-2 (Apollo 16) were identical. LRV-3 is the most interesting of the three.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle
@sjr60 said:
"Oh the sweet irony. Obsessive complaints about the 'superfluous' stands while, at the same time, complaints that they have stickers rather than prints!"
I for one cannot stand it.
@gunther_schnitzel said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @Jelonek76 said:
"I don't know if it's mentioned in the booklet so being "an Apollo fan" I'd like to remind that the LRV was invented by the team at Boing, whose leader was Polish engineer Mieczyslaw Bekker. "
Boing"
Boring or Boeing?"
As it has no doors, I’m guessing Boeing.
@yellowcastle said:
" @sjr60 said:
"Oh the sweet irony. Obsessive complaints about the 'superfluous' stands while, at the same time, complaints that they have stickers rather than prints!"
I for one cannot stand it.
"
No one mentioned the incredibly large amount of blue pins yet... (or did I just do it?)
@Mica86 said:
"All this nasa space based toot isnt designed to be aesthetic just practical...so its all the more baffling people like this ugly crap and they make sets to look at out of it.
Guess its hitting some peoples niche i suppose..
Actually im curious, was that piece of shoddy looking crap actually of use on the moon? It looks like it would move slower than walking pace..."
Yes, it was very useful, to put it mildly. The word you're looking for it 'utilitarian' not 'shoddy' or 'crap'. It was meant to do it's job, and looking pretty doing it wasn't a part of that job. Also, people love NASA history because it still teaches us new things, and those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (See also: flat earthers / moon landing deniers / etc.)
I really like this set.
I buy sets for the building experience but also for the parts.
I would have preferred the mud guards without the prints.
Have stickers and less prints please !!
(the set could have been without informaiton plaques)
@Mica86 said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
" @Mica86 said:
"All this nasa space based toot isnt designed to be aesthetic just practical...so its all the more baffling people like this ugly crap and they make sets to look at out of it.
Guess its hitting some peoples niche i suppose..
Actually im curious, was that piece of shoddy looking crap actually of use on the moon? It looks like it would move slower than walking pace..."
Yes, it was very useful, to put it mildly. The word you're looking for it 'utilitarian' not 'shoddy' or 'crap'. It was meant to do it's job, and looking pretty doing it wasn't a part of that job. Also, people love NASA history because it still teaches us new things, and those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (See also: flat earthers / moon landing deniers / etc.)"
My point was A. its not appealing aesthetically as a display piece...i obviously wasnt critiscing them not having a cooler moon ride...
And B. I was genuinely questioning its use because it looks like it could barely push 1 mile an hour.
Why so eager to chuck me in with the flat earthers.. this soft skinned behaviour..any critique of something they like will cause them to launch personal attacks on people..uncalled for.
"
Apologies, wasn't intending to lump you in with them! Re-reading my comment, it was bit harsh. Sorry, this was not intended.
@Mica86 said:
"My point was A. its not appealing aesthetically as a display piece...i obviously wasnt critiscing them not having a cooler moon ride..."
It depicts a piece of history. That alone makes it a worthy display piece in many people's eyes.
The price is only off by about $30. I'm willing to pay this based off of the new tires, wheels, and orange guards with PRINTED flags. Pre-ordered for double points and got the Candy Store GWP too. Also, am getting the Classic Space magnet with this as it seemed appropriate.
@Mica86 said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
" @Mica86 said:
"All this nasa space based toot isnt designed to be aesthetic just practical...so its all the more baffling people like this ugly crap and they make sets to look at out of it.
Guess its hitting some peoples niche i suppose..
Actually im curious, was that piece of shoddy looking crap actually of use on the moon? It looks like it would move slower than walking pace..."
Yes, it was very useful, to put it mildly. The word you're looking for it 'utilitarian' not 'shoddy' or 'crap'. It was meant to do it's job, and looking pretty doing it wasn't a part of that job. Also, people love NASA history because it still teaches us new things, and those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (See also: flat earthers / moon landing deniers / etc.)"
My point was A. its not appealing aesthetically as a display piece...i obviously wasnt critiscing them not having a cooler moon ride...
And B. I was genuinely questioning its use because it looks like it could barely push 1 mile an hour.
Why so eager to chuck me in with the flat earthers.. this soft skinned behaviour..any critique of something they like will cause them to launch personal attacks on people..uncalled for.
"
You could easily get your questions answered in a quick internet search. But for reference, it could go about ten miles per hour, had a range of about fifty miles, and could carry quite a bit of samples and equipment. Compare the lunar traverses on Apollo 14, where the astronauts had to carry their tools in something similar to a wheelbarrow, to the lunar traverses on the missions where they had a rover. It was terrifically useful.
@Wiseman_2 said:
"Okay, I gotta ask: why is this considered 'Astronomically expensive' at 9.9p per part, while the McLaren P1 was considered 'Reasonably priced' at 10.0p per part?"
Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not the individual in question likes the parts involved. If the person doesn't like the parts, you'll frequently see comments suggesting they should have been left out (and that their entire purpose was to bloat the MSRP to buy Ferraris), or that they shouldn't be factored into the final price (ignoring the cost to manufacture). Usually, however, you'll see this in the comments, not the reviews. Being such a huge Technic fan, and being used to getting bags of pins and axles in every set, it's especially weird to see this coming from @Huw, but the unprecedentedly high quantity of large, stickered plaques certainly raises one's eyebrow. Even more so, when you consider that SW UCS has sworn off using stickers on similar information plaques.
@jh84007:
"Lunacy" means "moonstruck", as in ancient times it was believed that the moon influenced all kinds of mental and physiological conditions.
@yellowcastle:
There are several backup components left over from the Apollo missions, and yes, I'd expect that a museum would want to display one fully deployed rather than folded up. If they had _two_ copies, I could see them doing both. The problem is, there are probably no more than three examples left on Earth (one for each mission that deployed them), and it would make more sense to disperse them as widely as possible vs giving one museum two of them. However, museums will frequently produce mock-ups in these cases, as it is an interesting part of the history to see how they were bundled up and packed into the lander base. 21309 also offered an opportunity to display the model in component form, which got praise when that set was reviewed.
@Binnekamp:
The astronauts had the benefit of there being two of them, and having gravity that was 1/6th what we experience. Also, it was designed such that the chassis wouldn't simply drop onto the ground prior to being unfolded, but rather you'd alternate between deploying it and unfolding it in about six steps, as seen in this NASA animation video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8VtL54iuWc
@Mica86:
Only two unmanned rover missions have bested the three Apollo rovers in terms of distance traveled, which is all the more impressive when you consider most rover missions last years vs only having a few days in the seat of an LRV. The LRV could run circles around even the fastest unmanned rover. It was designed for 6mph, but achieved over 11mph on Apollo 17. They did have an advantage in having the operator seated on the vehicle, instead of having to send time-delayed commands and wait to see how things turned out.
The LRV was designed to be as lightweight as possible, and to function in an airless environment (the "tires" are wire mesh with metal tread strips riveted around the circumference, allowing the regolith to pass through the mesh and be expelled. I once saw a comparison map showing how much ground Apollo 11 covered vs one of the rover missions, and it's like the difference between being able to explore one room in a house vs the entire neighborhood.
@Huw said:
" @danishbricklayer said:
"Thanks for the review. I agree that it's way overpriced - but I also have to point out that it's the same price as the McLaren F1 car 42171. That set is just another car and has 300 fewer parts; it's far less interesting than this one. I don't understand why that one wasn't also considered absurdly overpriced?!
"
Probably because we haven't reviewed it yet!
"
A good point well made.
If you do review it though I'll expect that assessment ;)
@magpie9 said:
" @rainstorm26 said:
"Fake buggy for a faked trip to the moon.... ;)"
Fake moon hanging above a flat earth."
"Say it's only a paper moon
Sailing over a cardboard sea..."
@TheOtherMike said:
" @magpie9 said:
" @rainstorm26 said:
"Fake buggy for a faked trip to the moon.... ;)"
Fake moon hanging above a flat earth."
"Say it's only a paper moon
Sailing over a cardboard sea...""
And who's going to pay for all these stickered plaques?
[everyone stares]
...I guess I am.
Too many custom pieces being made for such kits. At what point is not not LEGO and just a model kit?
I really like this set, it was a good build. It displays great on my "NASA" shelf. I even got the 3-in-1 astronaut to accent it.