NASA Shuttle Carrier Aircraft announced!

Looks awesome—but they botched all the typography!

I'll get this sometime, but my first impressions are that it seems like a lesser effort compared to other NASA sets, and poor value. Compare this to the Medieval Town Square, with a thousand more parts and eight or ten minifigs for the same price.

Amazing, but it is ACTUALLY EXPENSIVE where I live and I don't have space at the moment.

I like it, but it's too big. I would have no where to store it.

Looking at this, all I can think of is a momma possum. Get on that, Creator theme!

@Jeruvius said:
" @tne328 said:
"I'm sorry, I really wanted to like it, but I don't. I had high hopes for a set combining the 747, which is an iconically good-looking aircraft, and the classic shuttle. The set needed to capture the bulbous sleekness of the cockpit and cheek area, but it's lacking. The engine fairing on the shuttle is disjointed and jarring compared to the contours of the real thing. This was a case where every possible exposed stud should have been hidden, and instead it's all flat plates and blocky, especially around the nose and tail, where streamlining is what makes the original beautiful. I know the designers are always constrained by available bricks, but with all the curved parts and creative parts usage of the last 10 years (Floral and Mario just to start), this was not the time to stay blocky. And while I could be wrong, the engines feel too small too.

This set needed the sleekness of 10318, but doesn't have it. I'm disappointed."

Agreed. The lack of sleekness is a real detriment to this set."

I thought as soon as I saw it 'that's a bit messy'. Add my name to the list of disappointed people.
Not that it particularly interests me, I'm not a massive fan of these big Nasa sets, although only because I'm not into that sort of thing.

People who like this set, can you tell me why?

I’d like to be similarly inspired, and wanted to know your thoughts & interests with the model. Do you swoosh it around at home?

It's like getting two sets...

@SeparatorGuyChallis said:
"This landing at Stansted Airport 1983 June 5th and go pass my house as we lived in Broxted village which is at the end of runway is one of my early memories I was 3 at the time. "

I grew up very nearby in Henham and they had a photo in the pub of the shuttle on the 747 passing overhead hung on the wall. Really must have been a big local event when it came over.

And there you go. The first LEGO Star Trek set.

@tyresoflaherty said:
"Wheeeeeeeeee!

-the shuttle, probably"

Considering the Enterprise “orbiter” was 100% not flight-capable, probably not. Look at the clench factor at the engines. They’ve been completely enveloped by the hull!

@sir_vasco:
Possum or opossum? Because they are two completely unrelated animals. I’m not even sure what a possum looks like.

I like this despite it's glaring flaws (overall shape, horizontal stabilizer placement, size of engines, among others). I like how they used the European Tour/ Paris Airshow livery / logo set as inspiration. The blue stripe and worm logo wasn't a typical combo otherwise. Looking forward to the eventual mods to bring this closer to realistic shape.

The subject matter and the construction techniques make this seem like a very old set. So used to seeing the specialized airplane canopies from the City theme that brick-built craft like these look archaic by comparison!

I feel like Lego sometimes wants to remind you that this is still a Lego set and in achieving that, they lose the realistic aspect of the set.

I wonder why they chose to call it "Shuttle Carrier Aircraft" rather than something like Boeing 747 with Space Shuttle Enterprise? It sounds like a generic title they would use if Boeing or NASA didn't want to allow the use of the actual names.

LEGO is tempting me when I have neither space nor money :(

Absolutely awesome announcement for my birthday, so thank you! :)

This is not an especially good-looking build for the price.

@Banners said:
" @dvw2 said:
"Looks awesome—but they botched all the typography!"

Nice spot. Wonder what the reason is for not using Helvetica. Would it have required a prohibitively expensive special license perhaps? Plenty of generic 'Swiss' alternatives if so."

This is LEGOs current corporate font (a geometric instead of NASA's static sans serif) ... It's unbelievable this can happen, it's like some rip-off brand at work. It just looks cheap.

Is that a new 3x4 wedge slope?

I might get it just for the Boeing 747, removing the mounts for the space shuttle and Nasa branding.

An impressive set of our history.

The nose of both craft is off.
I have bought many NASA-linked sets before and I was looking forward to this one.
It sadly has become an easy pass.

Getting this day one.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @Huw said:
" @Snail said:
" @Banners said:
" @dvw2 said:
"Looks awesome—but they botched all the typography!"

Nice spot. Wonder what the reason is for not using Helvetica. Would it have required a prohibitively expensive special license perhaps? Plenty of generic 'Swiss' alternatives if so."

This is LEGOs current corporate font (a geometric instead of NASA's static sans serif) ... It's unbelievable this can happen, it's like some rip-off brand at work. It just looks cheap. "
Where is the typography wrong? "

It is most noticeable on the 'United States' text along the sides. Looking at the real thing, the font and especially the letter spacing are quite different."

Here is a good look at a photo...

https://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/STS/Large/ECN-24314.jpg

I like this a lot.

Boats and planes have always been a strong point for Icons.

@PurpleDave said:
"And there you go. The first LEGO Star Trek set.

@tyresoflaherty said:
"Wheeeeeeeeee!

-the shuttle, probably"

Considering the Enterprise “orbiter” was 100% not flight-capable, probably not. Look at the clench factor at the engines. They’ve been completely enveloped by the hull!"

It was capable and did fly. Just not into space. That was the reason it was built. Originally, they were planning to make it space capable, but that changed.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"And there you go. The first LEGO Star Trek set.

@tyresoflaherty said:
"Wheeeeeeeeee!

-the shuttle, probably"

Considering the Enterprise “orbiter” was 100% not flight-capable, probably not. Look at the clench factor at the engines. They’ve been completely enveloped by the hull!"

It was capable and did fly. Just not into space. That was the reason it was built. Originally, they were planning to make it space capable, but that changed. "

It never had engines, heat shielding, radar, or retractable landing gear installed. Never flew. The orbiter is incapable of generating lift to make a second pass at landing, so it’s basically just hitting a really long dartboard with the world’s most expensive, most complicated dart. It did five controlled freefalls onto a landing strip, three times with the tailcone, and twice with pretengines strapped to the back end. Never flew.

@ra226 said:
" @mr_skinny said:
"I’m running out of space :-D"

It's a space shuttle. It has space -right in the name-."

Not only that but at this point in time it is literally "classic space" for all the fans!

Thank you, i will show myself out.

It doesn't grab me and I'm okay with that. My backlog is horrific and there are plenty I may need to talk myself out of due to money or space.

For anybody that loves the look of it I hope it scratches that itch/desire.

@PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"And there you go. The first LEGO Star Trek set.

@tyresoflaherty said:
"Wheeeeeeeeee!

-the shuttle, probably"

Considering the Enterprise “orbiter” was 100% not flight-capable, probably not. Look at the clench factor at the engines. They’ve been completely enveloped by the hull!"

It was capable and did fly. Just not into space. That was the reason it was built. Originally, they were planning to make it space capable, but that changed. "

It never had engines, heat shielding, radar, or retractable landing gear installed. Never flew. The orbiter is incapable of generating lift to make a second pass at landing, so it’s basically just hitting a really long dartboard with the world’s most expensive, most complicated dart. It did five controlled freefalls onto a landing strip, three times with the tailcone, and twice with pretengines strapped to the back end. Never flew."

I came here specifically to point out that Enterprise was only used to test things and never went into space. Good catch, PurpleDave.

I like this set, but I wish it was carrying one of the shuttles it actually had to transport that actually went to space.

Oh well. Still a cool set.

Great looking model kit.
Need to create some room. My selves are too narrow. Need to find a proper spot, but a must buy for me nonetheless.
I know the font style is 'off', but it's so NOT a deal breaker. It's so minor.
And for the guys wanting a super accurate kit, Revell made one years ago, but you gotta' cut, sand, prime, paint parts. Then glue carefully, apply water-slide decals, etc.
It's spot on accurate but you got to do some more work.
I've been an old school model kit builder but this Lego one is excellent. Less labor and still looks incredibly impressive.

This does seem to be the same 1:110 scale as the Saturn V. It seems odd that LEGO would not mention it anywhere, especially for all the people who are making Rocket Gardens in that scale.

It think we (at least Technic fans) can all agree that if they wanted to make a new space shuttle it should've been a modern version of 8480 .

@legoDad42 said:
"Great looking model kit.
Need to create some room. My selves are too narrow. Need to find a proper spot, but a must buy for me nonetheless.
I know the font style is 'off', but it's so NOT a deal breaker. It's so minor.
And for the guys wanting a super accurate kit, Revell made one years ago, but you gotta' cut, sand, prime, paint parts. Then glue carefully, apply water-slide decals, etc.
It's spot on accurate but you got to do some more work.
I've been an old school model kit builder but this Lego one is excellent. Less labor and still looks incredibly impressive."

Brick built is "off" by design, I fully get that and don't expect anything impossible.

But that font choice is just such a "we don't really care" move ... Why making a Boeing 747 and the NASA enterprise, then using the default corporate Lego typeface instead of the NASA typeface? Nothing in that lettering says "NASA". They could have done some much cooler fantasy airplane and spaceship with that approach, why even bother accuracy?

The shuttle is ok, but the front of the carrier completely kills it for me. I want to want this and may see if I can get just the shuttle or maybe the whole set if someone does a good mod.

@StyleCounselor said:
"Gliding is flying. That's how they train new pilots at the AFA."

They used it for drop tests, like an anvil with a fixed-wing parachute, capable of generating as much lift as a Detroit lowrider with busted hydraulic lines during pothole season.

@Graysmith said:
"The Space Shuttle has been done to death, and it's been done better than this. I love all things space but for the love of god, the Space Shuttle has been out of service for nearly 15 years now and it's time to move on."

Yes, because the Saturn V was absolutely currently in use when Lego did 21309. It wasn't a majorly historic spacecraft or anything.

No interest in another Space Shuttle and the Boeing just doesn’t look that good if I’m being honest

I think this is the type of set that will look much better when built than on the box pictures. The studs in the front of the haul are indeed not great, but I think the model will be LARGER than we expect and thus will create a positive momentum around it. As a engineer, I am just extremely fascinated by the fact that an airplane could carry a space shuttle on top of it, and loved that combo much before this set was released. So I am buying it. Given all the comments, I will wait for the discount, not because I don't love it, but because I know many of you will not buy and thus will drive the price down.

I love Lego's NASA stuff, and at first glance this looked great. But wow is it terrible on closer inspection.

Both noses; where the wings and fins meet the fuselage; the comically undersized engines; studs scattered haphazardly. Yuck.

Aircraft are notoriously hard to do well with Lego, especially these two. Not sure how much you'd need to scale it up to look good with currently available pieces, but my guess is at least twice this size.

As it stands, it looks like two barely-3-in-1 quality models scaled up. The complex landing gear system is slick, but it's wasted on this mess.

I can see someone in aerospace wanting this for their office, but even then it's really only attractive from a (great) distance.

._.

@PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Gliding is flying. That's how they train new pilots at the AFA."

They used it for drop tests, like an anvil with a fixed-wing parachute, capable of generating as much lift as a Detroit lowrider with busted hydraulic lines during pothole season."
@peterlmorris

Research how spacecraft land, ep. space shuttles. That's how they all come down. There's no 'flying' as you define the term.

See, https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/space-shuttle-as-a-glider/

"The Space Shuttle flies as a glider during reentry and landing.... So there are no propellants available to the SSME’s during descent and, though the engines are still present, the shuttle returns as an unpowered glider."

Looks like a 2010 set.... With that nose, probably the most important part, it's a pass.

@mlemley43 said:
"Looks great! 6544 was one of my favorite sets growing up!"

Same!

I just want that shuttle.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @deetwenty said:
"I'm seeing 120 EUR here - max.

Remember the Saturn V?"

You are entitled to your opinion, but 21309 NASA Apollo Saturn V contains 1969 pieces and cost €119.99 when it was released in 2017, while this set contains 2417 pieces. Perhaps the price should be lower, but expecting the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft to cost €119.99 is not at all realistic."
Fair enough, but going by a comparable price to part ratio (which by the looks of the sets and the parts used seems realistic and fair), a set with roughly 2500 such parts would have been 150 Euro in 2020 to 2023 (which was when the Saturn V was available for 120 Euro RRP). Give it two years of generous inflation and you are at 180 Euro. Add some inevitable LEGO greed and you get to 200 Euro.
The RRP for this is 230 Euro though. Ridiculous, bordering on insane. Plus this contains several stickers, where the Saturn V was all prints.

@StyleCounselor said:
""The Space Shuttle falls as a controlled brick during reentry and landing.... So there are no propellants available to the SSME’s during descent and, though the engines are still present, the shuttle returns like an impaired skydiver.""

There. Fixed it for you.

I am in the target market for this. While I can handle the shuttle flaws (cockpit and terrible engine cowling) there is no way to get past the horrific 747 nose. Lego could have done exactly what they done on the shuttle and avoid that huge gap. To buy this, I'll need two things:(1) a proper discount and (2) a reasonably good and stable mod - I might try to create my own mod whenever the plans are available.

On other news, this look like a 'flight' to me. Even NASA calls these a 'flight'.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvidshub.net%2Fimage%2F687292%2Fenterprise-separates-747-sca-first-tailcone-off-free-flight&psig=AOvVaw0VA-41ntq7EmoNUOznSZod&ust=1746721431371000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBQQjRxqGAoTCLjF7sbikY0DFQAAAAAdAAAAABCBAQ

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvidshub.net%2Fimage%2F737049%2Fenterprise-free-flight-after-separation-747&psig=AOvVaw0VA-41ntq7EmoNUOznSZod&ust=1746721431371000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBQQjRxqGAoTCLjF7sbikY0DFQAAAAAdAAAAABCMAQ

@AustinPowers said:
" Plus this contains several stickers, where the Saturn V was all prints. "

I mean, the Saturn V also had fewer distinct things that needed to be printed-or-stickered, and none of them were double-sided.

I am not interested in this set.

@HOBBES said:
"On other news, this look like a 'flight' to me. Even NASA calls these a 'flight'."

Congressional appropriations are tough to swing when you refer to it as an “unpreventably aggressive descent”, and you can’t jazz it up by calling it reentry when you never did the exit in the first place.

Looks good, and a definite purchase (eventually) but there's a few niggles with shaping so I suspect some modifications will need to be made. And for that price I would have least expected a printed cockpit window for the shuttle.

@PurpleDave said:
" @HOBBES said:
"On other news, this look like a 'flight' to me. Even NASA calls these a 'flight'."

Congressional appropriations are tough to swing when you refer to it as an “unpreventably aggressive descent”, and you can’t jazz it up by calling it reentry when you never did the exit in the first place."

Are you done with the pedantry?

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...

@deetwenty said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
" @deetwenty said:
"I'm seeing 120 EUR here - max.

Remember the Saturn V?"

You are entitled to your opinion, but 21309 NASA Apollo Saturn V contains 1969 pieces and cost €119.99 when it was released in 2017, while this set contains 2417 pieces. Perhaps the price should be lower, but expecting the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft to cost €119.99 is not at all realistic."

Fair.

The Saturn V
had 1969 pieces
its parts (no box, no manual) weighted 1746 g
Recommended retail price: 119.99 € (6.09 ct/piece) (6.87 ct/g)
Street price: about 100.00 € (5.08 ct/piece) (5.73 ct/g)

The re-release three years later in 2020-2023 had the exact same price.

Two years later:

The new set
has 2417 pieces
its parts have an unknown weight
Recommended retail price: 229.99 € (9.52 ct/piece) (? ct/g)
Street price: unknown

There is inflation, sure, but not on this scale."

The simple answer is that the Saturn V was underpriced. PPP in USD is identical to 497 from...46 years ago? When you factor in four and a half decades of actual inflation, zero net change in PPP is a lot more indicative of how cheap this is.