Review: 10360 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
Posted by Huw,
LEGO has been making models of NASA space shuttles, rockets and other vehicles since 1990 and they always seem to be popular, particularly, and not unsurprisingly, in the USA.
10360 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft is the first realistic model of a shuttle and the aircraft used to transport it, but it was met with some criticism when revealed earlier this week, so read on to find out if those first impressions were justified.
Summary
10360 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, 2,417 pieces.
£199.99 / $229.99 / €229.99 | 8.3p/9.5c/9.5c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
An impressively sized model that looks great on display
- Complex and clever undercarriage mechanism
- Ingenious construction techniques
- First shuttle with a tail cone
- Shuttle engines and landing gear stow inside when not fitted
- Engines look far too small
- Minor print alignment issues
- Wrong typeface on stickers
- Horizontal stabilisers too high on fuselage
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Stickers and parts
There are a lot of printed parts in the set, but also a small sticker sheet printed on transparent backing, perhaps because white stickers never match the colour of white bricks.
NASA uses the typeface Helvetica for the 'United States' and other text on its craft, but for some reason a different sans-serif font has been used here. (thank you, @dvw2)
There are new parts and recolours in the set but I am no longer an expert to be able to identify them. However, one thing of note is that all the white pieces have new element numbers because the formulation of white ABS has been changed recently and assigned a new colour number, 426. According to preliminary investigation by New Elementary, the difference is evident when shining a light through them: the new parts are more opaque, as it used to be in the 1990s. It remains to be seen whether it yellows over time or if LEGO has finally addressed that annoying problem.
Construction
Construction of the 747 begins with the landing gear, which is both clever and complex. Through a series of worm gears the rear pair of four-wheeled trucks rotate forwards into the fuselage, while the front pair turn sideways towards the centre of it.
The orange pieces are used to provide support while building this subassembly vertically and are removed once it's complete.
The central landing gear mechanism is also attached to the front set of wheels, and all five sets of four wheels are raised and lowered by rotating the dark grey gear wheel between the two.
The fuselage is completed before adding the wings and tail fin. They are held on with relatively few pieces, which should allow it to be partially disassembled for easier storage: I've not tried yet, but intend to.
The completed model
The plane rests on a stand that holds it at a 'taking-off' angle. The shuttle is attached to it using ball joints, allowing it to be easily removed.
The shuttle is fitted with a fairing/tail cone at the back that covers the engines while it's being transported: apparently without it there's too much turbulence around them, causing the 747 to have difficulty flying with its enormous cargo.
Unfortunately, it looks like a tacked-on afterthought, with unsightly gaps between it and the shuttle's fuselage, but it can be easily removed, as I'll show below.
The stand comes with information plaques for both aircraft, which I believe to be error-free.
The stand need not be used: it's perfectly possible to lower the wheels of the Boeing and have it rest on those instead.
The Shuttle
The shuttle is about 32cm long, so just over half the length of the 2,354-piece 10283 NASA Space Shuttle Discovery, which is the definitive version of the craft.
Nevertheless, I think it looks pretty good for its size, although somewhat odd and probably unfamiliar to many with the rear faring fitted.
Thankfully, it can be easily removed to allow the engines to be fitted. Their parts, and the landing gear, can be stowed neatly inside the shuttle loading bay, which I thought was a rather neat touch.
With engines fitted, it looks more familiar.
The fairing is affixed with a single Technic pin.
The 747
This the first time the classic Boeing aircraft has been modelled in LEGO and I think the designers have done a pretty good job of capturing the distinctive shape and contours of the craft at this scale.
It's not without faults, though. In particular, the engines look far too small. I know we have become accustomed to seeing huge engines on modern aircraft and those on the 747 were much smaller, but even so, I think they look a bit pathetic. They also look to be too close to the ground.
The horizontal stabilisers are too high: they should be roughly in the middle of the fuselage but here have been mounted above it.
Modelling the compound curves of the front of the plane was always going to be a challenge at this scale and all manner of curves and wedges have been used to do so. It's not perfect, but I think it's acceptable. The cockpit window piece is printed.
The dark blue stripe and windows are printed on 2x4 curved slopes but, unfortunately, there are some minor print position differences, so the stripe doesn't look as good as you'd expect it to on an expensive product such as this.
Ingenious and unconventional building techniques have been used to angle the wings correctly. They are hinged near the fuselage where plates meet bricks in the photo below, then attached underneath it using bars and clips.
The horizontal stabiliser sub-assembly is attached using Technic axle pins, and the tail fin with clips that angle it appropriately.
Verdict
At over 60cm long and with a 50cm wingspan, this is a large and impressive model, one that requires considerable space to display. The landing gear mechanism of the 747 is very impressive, neatly built into the fuselage, and it works very smoothly.
It's not without its faults, though. The size of the engines in particular lets the overall appearance down a bit, and some will say there is room for improvement around the nose and cockpit. It's certainly better than 10177 Boeing 787 Dreamliner in that regard!
The 2,417 piece set will cost £199.99/$229.99/€229.99 when released on June 1st, which doesn't seem too off the mark for a model of this size. Like all NASA sets, I think it will prove to be popular.
122 likes
58 comments on this article
Thanks for the review @Huw! Unfortunately it confirms my feelings from the announcement, the set is pretty underwhelming. It wouldn’t look nice on a shelf next to 10283 NASA Space Shuttle Discovery and 10318 Concorde
I actually think the engines are properly sized for the 747-100 which did not have the same ultra high-bypass turbofans as later 747-400 models (which were much more common and flew until recently). The 747 fuselage diameter is ~6.5 m and the JT9D turbofan diameter ~2.4 for a fuselage to engine ratio of 2.7. If I count studs right in the model, the 747 is 8 studs wide in the center of the fuselage and the engine cowlings are a brick round 3x3. 8/3= 2.67 which is very close to the true ratio.
I think it looks great. Nothing underwhelming about it.
With LEGO, and the practical limitations of bricks, I don't expect perfection and they've done a great job overall.
I'll probably still pass but that's only because of space concerns, not the model itself.
If I had the space, I'd buy this instantly.
I had to google the backwards U.S. Flag as it just looked wrong to me. Apparently, it's a thing.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/heres-why-us-flag-sometimes-appears-backwards
I would have expected that anyone familiar enough with the subject matter to be bothered by the font would find the tail cone perfectly familiar and prefer the engines be sized for accuracy rather than impressiveness.
Given all the airplanes over the years that have molded noses, I'm a bit disappointed with how the front of the 747 looks.
I also consider engines are properly dimensioned for a Boeing 747-100, but I feel like the wings are placed too low, they should be around 2 plates higher in the body, or perhaps a bit more bulky near the fuselage as they are in the real model.
All in all, it's a very decent rendition, but personally I prefer the 10266 Apollo lunar descent module and 21309 Saturn V rocket from some years ago, I think both look somehow less blocky and more accurate than this one.
Just as fragile as a real Boeing !
It's nice in a 2010 way. But with a 2025 price :(
I think very few would notice the slight difference in typeface, and even fewer would care. It's actually only the existence of 10283 that puts me off this. If it was the 747 on its own done to the same scale as 10283 I'd buy it! Yes, it would be a similar length to 10294 but what the heck!
That’s an Interesting note about the white plastic formula, I’m looking forward to getting my hands on some of those new white parts. I’ve noticed in the last few years that Lego bricks have become somewhat translucent across all colors, with an almost sparkly subsurface scattering look. Maybe this will be a direction away from that
@wasatchbuilder said:
"I actually think the engines are properly sized for the 747-100 which did not have the same ultra high-bypass turbofans as later 747-400 models (which were much more common and flew until recently). The 747 fuselage diameter is ~6.5 m and the JT9D turbofan diameter ~2.4 for a fuselage to engine ratio of 2.7. If I count studs right in the model, the 747 is 8 studs wide in the center of the fuselage and the engine cowlings are a brick round 3x3. 8/3= 2.67 which is very close to the true ratio. "
I was about to write basically the same thing.
I don't like this set. I think the nose of both vehicles leave a lot to be desired and, somehow, the wrong typeface on the stickers really bother me.
Should have just rereleased 6544 as a Legends.
Thanks for a thorough review. This does look better in the review than in the box photos, but I'm still not sure if it's a day-one purchase for me. I might wait to see if I can get it 20% off around Black Friday. That's assuming the economy hasn't collapsed by then.
I'm comparing the stickers to photos of the real shuttle. I am struggling to see a difference in the font. They look identical to me. Can someone point out a specific deviation?
Extremely impressive. I'm surprised that it's taken Lego this long to make a 747.
@woosterlegos said:
"I'm comparing the stickers to photos of the real shuttle. I am struggling to see a difference in the font. They look identical to me. Can someone point out a specific deviation?"
There are lots of differences. But if you look at the end (or 'terminal') of the "e" as a specific example, here on the stickers it's angled, but in Helvetica it's level.
The engines are about proper for the JT9D on the SCA, but the horizontal stabilizers appear too high. On a discount, I might get it just for the 747.
Thank you all for the comments on the engines. It appears they are accurately sized, then, but they just look too puny to lift an aircraft of that size, especially with another one strapped on top of it!
Brings back memories of 6544 :D
@yellowcastle said:
"I had to google the backwards U.S. Flag as it just looked wrong to me. Apparently, it's a thing.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/heres-why-us-flag-sometimes-appears-backwards"
Thank you for pointing that out! It's a great small detail on the set and a neat bit of trivia that most people don't even realize is done!
@Huw said:
"Thank you all for the comments on the engines. It appears they are accurately sized, then, but they just look too puny to lift an aircraft of that size, especially with another one strapped on top of it!"
You're used to modern airliners, like the 737MAX and A320neo families, where the engines are much larger in relation to the fuselage.
The reason engines have gotten larger in diameter isn't for power (though modern engines are generally more powerful), it's for fuel efficiency. Larger diameter engines are more fuel efficient, and airlines care a LOT about fuel efficiency since fuel costs money.
The two SCAs were never re-engined with larger, more efficient engines because they flew so rarely. Airliner-size jet turbine engines are really, really expensive, and re-engining would have cost a lot more than the extra fuel. It even works out in hindsight from an environmental standpoint as well - engines have a lot of embodied energy, so it would have created more CO2 to build and install the more efficient engines than they would have saved via reduced fuel consumption.
@Alpha_Tango said:
"The engines are about proper for the JT9D on the SCA, but the horizontal stabilizers appear too high."
You're right, they are too high. 747s have the horizontal stabilizers mounted to the sides of the fuselage, where this Lego rendition has the horizontal stabilizers mounted to the vertical stabilizer root, just above the fuselage.
The LEGO website listing provides the dimensions: 10.5 in. (27 cm) high, 25 in. (63 cm) long and 21 in. (53.5 cm) wide. I wonder if it would be possible to omit one of the 747's wings to allow displaying the build against a wall. One of the assembly images seems to indicate the wings are mounted with some technic axles.
@granto said:
"The LEGO website listing provides the dimensions: 10.5 in. (27 cm) high, 25 in. (63 cm) long and 21 in. (53.5 cm) wide. I wonder if it would be possible to omit one of the 747's wings to allow displaying the build against a wall. One of the assembly images seems to indicate the wings are mounted with some technic axles.
"
Yes very easy. They are held with just two pieces.
When it comes to planes built out of bricks (as well as properly aligned prints on all pieces) I have long turned away from LEGO and towards Cobi, since while also not cheap they at least offer appropriate quality for the money.
I have both the space and the budget for this set, plus I love but the 747 as well as the Space Shuttle in real life. But I would never buy this set since a) I find it tremendously ugly as well as b) laughingly overpriced for what you get.
Super easy pass, doesn't look like a 2025 Lego build to me.
@woosterlegos said:
"I'm comparing the stickers to photos of the real shuttle. I am struggling to see a difference in the font. They look identical to me. Can someone point out a specific deviation?"
I noticed too the fonts were 'off' but not a big deal or deal breaker to get something like this aircraft. It's rare to have both and for this size a model.
People would have to buy the old Revell set to get this plane and shuttle combo, but much smaller and more work to put together.
But if you compare to the real aircraft's details, over all like you said, you don't see it right away.
The 'United States' and 'Enterprise' here, even with the font Lego used, if they did the kerning, putting the letters slightly closer to each other, would have been a bit more accurate.
The font NASA used I believe is Helvetica?
Again, not a deal breaker. For me, I can find online some water-slide decals with the accurate font (if I wanted to, I maybe might do it).
To me though it's the numbers on the tail that 'bother' me a bit. The '9'. The nine should be 'curled' up, not with a slant. That I'd try to swap out.
Also of note, in the review here they didn't put the stickers on the tail right. Should be switched.
The numbers under the NASA logo should be flush with each other facing towards the front.
@Huw
Great thorough review.
Of note, I think you have to swap the tail element with logo with one other.
The 905's should be flush with the NASA logo facing towards the front of the aircraft.
The 9 under the N on the left side of aircraft.
The 5 under the A on the right side.
@sjr60 said:
"I think very few would notice the slight difference in typeface, and even fewer would care. It's actually only the existence of 10283 that puts me off this. If it was the 747 on its own done to the same scale as 10283 I'd buy it! Yes, it would be a similar length to 10294 but what the heck!"
100% with you on that ;-)
And by the way, it's a pity it doesn't include the famous and hilarious note just under the shuttle supports as a separate stickered tile:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Shuttle_mounting_point.JPG
Thanks for the review. I'd have to agree that the engines aren't undersized for the turbines used on the SCA, although they would be for a current 747-400. I also wouldn't have cared about the typeface, although it is surprising that TLG didn't research that properly.
The nose of the 747 though is frankly pretty shocking, and puts me off immediately. I think doing the 747 at the same scale as the 10283 would probably not be viable, but I can't help but think that that would have been better, and that this looks like two somewhat half-assed sets combined, with a price that doesn't fit.
I didn't know this was coming out; it's a pleasant surprise in principle but an unpleasant surprise in execution. I'm not likely to get it as a result - I'll think about last year's Artemis a bit more instead!
I was initially put off by the awkward nose of the 747, but there are enough interesting details here to make me reconsider. Should it go on sale at some point, I may well get it, but it still isn't a "must-have" for my NASA collection.
Thank you for the excellent review!
How long until someone modifies the shuttle / carrier plane to recreate THAT scene from James Bond's 'Moonraker'? Also, first one to build all seven shuttles wins a cookie!
(My god, that was an awful film. Trying to top Star Wars with 007 was such a stupid move!)
@LegoJCS said:
"And by the way, it's a pity it doesn't include the famous and hilarious note just under the shuttle supports as a separate stickered tile:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Shuttle_mounting_point.JPG "
They did make mention of it in the instruction booklet at that stage when you put in that element.
The nose of the 747 looks like a dog's face.
I want to love this set so much, but I'm having a hard time...
Yeah nah. That plane just looks really bad.
@dontfeedthebrickster said:
" @yellowcastle said:
"I had to google the backwards U.S. Flag as it just looked wrong to me. Apparently, it's a thing.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/heres-why-us-flag-sometimes-appears-backwards"
Thank you for pointing that out! It's a great small detail on the set and a neat bit of trivia that most people don't even realize is done!"
I did a show in Indiana that had an off-duty cop doing security. He was in his daily uniform, which included a backwards flag on the right shoulder. I knew that flags displayed on opposite sides of a vehicle are always mirrored, but that was the first time I’d seen a single flag displayed like that when viewable from only one side (if you hang it across a street, it’s unavoidable from one side). He told me that US Flag Code used to require all flags on uniforms to be displayed with the blue field on the left, but that it had been changed for the right shoulder so it wouldn’t look like the flag was retreating when the wearer walks forward. On a Boy Scout uniform, it’s not an issue because you wear it on the left shoulder, as that’s the one that’s closest to your heart.
Copying my comment from the announcement post...it looks like the box art is indeed incorrect then regarding the 2x2 curved slope at the front of the OMS thruster pods. Is anyone aware of any other sets that have had incorrect piece orientations on the box?
"Apologies if someone pointed this out already, but it looks like the 2x2 curved slope at the lower front of the Orbital Maneuvering System pod is flipped on the box art but correctly oriented in the real images? It looks like the piece should curve upwards rather than down, smoothly matching the contour of the side of the OMS pod where the set of 4 small thrusters in a row are. If so, that is a glaring oversight on the box art..."
The sticker typeface looks like the same one used on the front of Lego boxes (other than Icons) for the past few years. That typeface also replaced Helvetica. Maybe that was intended to bring it closer to Lego IP? (not sure if it's a Lego-copyrighted typeface or a licensed one).
As stated on the reveal, this iteration of the shuttle program visited the Air Force base in my town. It was a very moving experience as a child to see this in person.
I will get it to go with my other NASA vehicles. The question is when. I'm rarely in a hurry with Lego anymore. I have too much.
I agree, the Boeing nose looks like a dog, and it's unfortunate that they didn’t do a better job with the gap on the fairing.
@Lunawisp said:
"Copying my comment from the announcement post...it looks like the box art is indeed incorrect then regarding the 2x2 curved slope at the front of the OMS thruster pods. Is anyone aware of any other sets that have had incorrect piece orientations on the box?
"Apologies if someone pointed this out already, but it looks like the 2x2 curved slope at the lower front of the Orbital Maneuvering System pod is flipped on the box art but correctly oriented in the real images? It looks like the piece should curve upwards rather than down, smoothly matching the contour of the side of the OMS pod where the set of 4 small thrusters in a row are. If so, that is a glaring oversight on the box art...""
Offhand, I can't cite any specific instances, but I believe RSotD has uncovered a few instances of what look like rookie copy/paste errors resulting in weirdly impossible artifacting. I think I've also encountered at least one that was clearly assembled wrong like this. But yeah, the STS main engines cant upwards, probably so they don't burn a hole in the base of the external fuel tank. That means the panel that the engines project out from is tipped forward, and this cone may be oriented perpendicular to that surface. So yes, it absolutely points up, not down. That image is stuck in my brain because a kid in my grade got a die-cast toy of this plane and orbiter when I was maybe in 3rd grade, and I thought they screwed up the design because that was the first time I'd ever seen what it looked like with the tail cone installed.
I just want the shuttle! Maybe the plane too if it was blue ;)
@Murdoch17 said:
"How long until someone modifies the shuttle / carrier plane to recreate THAT scene from James Bond's 'Moonraker'? Also, first one to build all seven shuttles wins a cookie!
(My god, that was an awful film. Trying to top Star Wars with 007 was such a stupid move!)"
Dolly had braces. MandelaEffect
" they always seem to be popular, particularly, and not unsurprisingly, in the USA. "
one of the few things we can be utterly proud of
The nose and hump are what they are. I can accept them as they are. As for the horizontal stabilizer, there had to be a better solution to put it in the right place. It’s way too high and looks goofy.
@Lunawisp said:
"Copying my comment from the announcement post...it looks like the box art is indeed incorrect then regarding the 2x2 curved slope at the front of the OMS thruster pods. Is anyone aware of any other sets that have had incorrect piece orientations on the box?"
10266 Apollo 11 Lunar Lander had the same problem. The 1x2 grill slopes near the “eyes” of the craft are upside down on the box and in many of the official images.
@LegoJCS said:
"And by the way, it's a pity it doesn't include the famous and hilarious note just under the shuttle supports as a separate stickered tile:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Shuttle_mounting_point.JPG "
I don't think I'd ever seen that before. That's hilarious!
So they can make a giant specialized, single-use cone piece for a dumb lamp because it's for Disney, but won't make a special nose cone for this NASA/Boeing license that really would have made a difference. Pretty clear who calls the shots around LEGO by now.
P.S. Every ABS plastic yellows and degrades. There is no special formula that will solve this once and for all. Not even if you would take out the flame retardant additives. And I can't imagine LEGO investing in adding UV stabilizers into the mix.
@Huw said:
"Thank you all for the comments on the engines. It appears they are accurately sized, then, but they just look too puny to lift an aircraft of that size, especially with another one strapped on top of it!"
Judge the engines by their size, do you? ;-)
That's the wonders of engineering for you.
There's a lot of clever solution inside, in I appreciate that. The outside though... That horrible vertical gap below the cockpit windows, the tail stabiliser sitting way too high, the ugly transition from fuselage to wing...
Sometimes I think LEGO puts too much time and effort into play features on what are obviously display models, and the appearance suffers.
@R0Sch said:
"They won't make a special nose cone for this NASA/Boeing license that really would have made a difference."
The nose on the set is awful, but I think a City-type single large mold nose would have looked totally out of place here.
The landing of plane and shuttle in June 1983 at Stansted Airport was one of my early memories, I was three years old, and lived at end of the runway in hamlet called broxted it flew along the row of houses to land. this set bring it all back
I think it's a great model. It's now standard to tear apart all sets that don't look like a Revell kit. For an "out of the box model" from Lego, it turned out really well. With a few modifications ( oh wait, Lego can be rebuilt? Awesome) this also looks great next to all the other NASA sets. Just my 2 cents ;)
@Lunawisp said:
"Copying my comment from the announcement post...it looks like the box art is indeed incorrect then regarding the 2x2 curved slope at the front of the OMS thruster pods. Is anyone aware of any other sets that have had incorrect piece orientations on the box?"
Not the first time LEGO has made an error in the box art. I’m not aware of other misorientations but parts have been wrongly placed before. Here are a couple that I spotted:
70612 Green Ninja Mech Dragon has a misplaced 1x3 plate on its back left leg that’s a half stud too low (the right leg is correct)
40712 Micro Rocket Launchpad has a bley truncated cone shown attached to the rocket but that part should be attached to the launchpad.
@SeparatorGuyChallis said:
"The landing of plane and shuttle in June 1983 at Stansted Airport was one of my early memories, I was three years old, and lived at end of the runway in hamlet called broxted it flew along the row of houses to land. this set bring it all back"
I remember it too - lived miles away but watched it on TV - I was 10 and although not into space type stuff I had been interested in the first shuttle launch, I thought the idea of landing one aircraft basically on top of another was bizarre and was never going to work - I still think that now!
@JonnyKay said:
"I think it's a great model. It's now standard to tear apart all sets that don't look like a Revell kit. For an "out of the box model" from Lego, it turned out really well. With a few modifications ( oh wait, Lego can be rebuilt? Awesome) this also looks great next to all the other NASA sets. Just my 2 cents ;)"
Absolutely. People seem to think they're an absolute genius by finding minute differences to the real thing. It actually just confirms their ignorance of the fact that Lego make building toys, not scale models!
That's totally NSFW.
@Huw said:
"Thank you all for the comments on the engines. It appears they are accurately sized, then, but they just look too puny to lift an aircraft of that size, especially with another one strapped on top of it!"
You have to remember that the interior of that plane is stripped down to nothing. There's no seats or overhead bins. They didn't need the full interior. They just needed the lifting capacity of the largest plane in production at that time. So anything that wasn't structural, or needed by the flight crew, got dumped to reduce the weight. And the orbiter is canted a little so the underside provides a fair amount of lift at the speeds the plane is capable of achieving under power.
@gearwheel said:
"The two SCAs were never re-engined with larger, more efficient engines because they flew so rarely. Airliner-size jet turbine engines are really, really expensive, and re-engining would have cost a lot more than the extra fuel. It even works out in hindsight from an environmental standpoint as well - engines have a lot of embodied energy, so it would have created more CO2 to build and install the more efficient engines than they would have saved via reduced fuel consumption."
Funny thing about that is, when planes were grounded during the pandemic lockdown, there were articles about how expensive it was to keep them out of service. Commercial jets are designed with the expectation that, unless they're actually in the shop, they will be in fairly constant use. Parking them costs an incredible amount of money per day, if you plan to fly them again (there's a patch of desert in the SW US where decommissioned planes sit for free, waiting to be disassembled for scrap). For those that are intended to return to service, being parked leaves them vulnerable. Any remaining fuel in the tanks can go bad, if it sits long enough. Full tanks are a fire hazard, but empty tanks can become contaminated, so keeping them pristine requires constant upkeep. The landing gear is, of course, deployed, which not only provides an opening, but a "ladder" that allows vermin access to the interior. You have to keep birds from nesting inside the landing gear bays, and you have to keep rodents from getting in and chewing the insulation off the miles of electrical wiring within.
Regarding the typeface and the differences:
Typefaces are the voice of text (or a whole organisation) in written form. Using some other sans serif typeface is still a sans serif, but it's a different voice that just feels off-character. It is like randomly using some other synchroneous speaker for a character that is already very well known to the audience – they expect that character to sound as they are used to, then he does sound very different and it's irritating as hell.
NASA in the space shuttle era speaks in Helvetica, it's branding and their visual voice. Change it, and it's off.
As for formal differences, the typeface Helvetica and the typeface Cera (or legos later internal iteration "Typewell") are both sans-serifs, but one is derived from 17th-century typefaces ("static" design principle) and the other is derived from late 19th- and 20th century ("geometric" design principle). The specifics are hard to grasp for the usual consumer in detail, but here is a comparison what's different – stroke endings, curves, specific shapes of the figures, dots, the letter spacing and the proportions between upper- and lowercase letters and their widths. In sum, this is a very different voice for letterings.
https://gestaltungssache.at/stuff/nasa-lego-type.png
Real question is not in the details though, but WHY Lego did this ... they are recreating a NASA icon here, they want it to be accurate and they are specific in the naming, but then they give the product a different voice, like showing Homer Simpson, but let him sound differently. Everyone that hears him talk will immediately feel something is off. Enthusiasts will know what is off (and the narrow group of simpsons fans and speach teacher will know what would have to change to make it fit).
Helvetica is not expensive to license, actually Lego had that font (or a variation of it) for very long years in all their packaging and communication.
Cera (used since the late 2010s) is a commercial font too, so licensing had cost them too. Typewell is their internal font used since 2024(?).
So it's not about avoiding Helvetica for some reason, but it's like to say "we are lego, we do our letterings in our own voice no matter what", forgetting they are recreating some established other brand here. That can be done on the plaquette below the model, it's their explanation for the model there, but not ON the model itself.
Or they didn't even notice there is a difference – which would shed a strange light on their care for details when re-creating some realworld object in their models.
For me as a fan of space related models, and a fan of (and professional in) typesetting this is a killer – lego didn't care for details, i'm turned off.