the only thing im getting this april fools is being fooled into waiting a month for a crumb of ninjaygo

@guachi said:
"Likely will be better-priced than City sets."
You can get two of these for the price of 60351 . EDIT: At least in Europe.

Friends is doing pretty well recently, lots of really good sets, and this is one more. I think I already know what my niece is gonna get for het next birthday....

Absolutely superb! (...apart from the purple)

Olivia totally rules!

@guachi said:
"Great designs but that pink and purple. :("
I don’t think that any of the pink or purple parts are unique to those colours. In fact, those parts are fairly easy to obtain in others colours. A bit of a nuisance to replace perhaps, but not a major headache.

Love the shuttle, very much looks like it comes from the same architect/design bureau
(in the LEGO world) as 31117 : Space Shuttle Adventure.

Sure it has differences but I love they kept true to the design instead of making some pastel purple shuttle, also it's not dumbed down with a prefab canopy.

Wow.
This looks great!

Hmm I'm not seeing it on LEGO shop yet, I wanted to add it to my wish list. I hope it's real. Sweet Mayhem, could use some visitors.

Well I know what my niece will be getting for Christmas this year! This rocks.

That shuttle looks better than 31117 !

Wot no petting zoo in the shuttle!?!?

Must be in the building then :o)

This looks like a well-designed set, both aestetically and technically, but I still feel that the Friends theme is just an indulgence and this will be on sale at half-price soon enough.

Pink is undoubtedly chosen as a colour that appeals to girls, lots of research to back up their natural affinity to it.

Could pair that base and walkway with a mech...

@ao_ka said:
"Friends improved a lot since 2012, the only thing it needs now is to drop for once that idea of associating pink, purple, lavender, lilac, pastel colors and etc to girls."

I don't disagree, but on the other hand, to me that color palette reads more 1980s than any specific gender.

I love the use of the gray Technic pin with ball as the Moon in the solar system model. Inspired.

€70 isn't bad at all.

Especially if you compare it to the €140 City launch set.

The 3-in-1 shuttle isn't bad for €50, with a solid alternate moon lander build, but only has 1 figure, and no building or anything.

I tagged the set as soon as I saw it, my 8yr old daughter loves space and anything to do with the planets. great to see this. she is going to LOVE IT!!!

The shuttle and astronauts look great. Im kinda disappointed theres no dog or cat with a space suit though

I saw this on twitter and was worried it was an april fools joke! I am so excited for this set

This is going to be the first Friends set I will have ever bought. It's excellent!

My wife will love this. ...and maybe it will mean I can get the new City space sets and she won't steal them all from me. :)

1 april!

I really thought this was an April Fools joke until I read the comments.

I also love the planet orbitals on the front of the building, and the working model of the Sun/Earth/Moon system!

Is it me or are there more and more space related sets? Ideas, Creator, Creator Experts, City, now Friends, and then a few other spacey sets scattered in other themes. Mostly realistic stuff but maybe the time is ripe to bring back the more fantastical SPACE line as a regular thing.

Anyway, loving the space academy. Curious to see the other sets in that line.

I know this is an April Fools joke but gosh, it's really TOO good!!

@NatureBricks said:
"10 years of AFOLS saying Friends sucks and then they make a space set and everyone takes notice.

"

Used to be, most were just City builds, but worse and lavender/teal/pink instead of more realistic tones.

Not only have the builds improved to where Friends is consistently turning out better sets, but I think in many ways, they have toned down the "feminine" palette.

(Now if only Breyer would get that guys buy their horses too--I'm sick of having to go into the girl's toys when I swing by Walmart, as opposed to farm supply stores which put them with the rest of the toys). Heck, even Friends, years ago, moved to the regular LEGO aisle instead of girl's toys at my same Walmart.

Doesn’t look bad; Firends has been knocking it out of the park in recent years.

However, just how old are the main characters? It takes years of training to be an astronaut according to NASA, and these characters are still going to school!

If this is an actual set(rather than an April fool’s day joke), I have just one question.
Where’s Zobo?

Are they aliens? Or are they just from a parallel universe, where Minidolls developed instead of Minifigs? It's a mystery and I'm going to uncover it!

I love that even the space shuttle is pink.

Friends sets have been getting better and aren't just girl exclusive.

@Iguanaboy said:
"If this is an actual set(rather than an April fool’s day joke), I have just one question.
Where’s Zobo?"

There's an instructions entry for it at https://www.lego.com/en-gb/service/buildinginstructions/41713 so would have to be quite a good job of an April Fools. Although that NASA sticker in the shuttle looks like an awful colour match.

Looks awesome! I love the design of the building and it's great to see a space shuttle like that! I hope it's going to be a sub-theme and not just a one-off. Think of the possibilities. Friends moon rovers! Friends space bases! The attention to detail would be phenomenal!
It's interesting to see a mini-doll with a headset.

But let's not forget the first minidoll in space already happened in 2019. The Lego Movie 2 had lots of minidolls in space, chief of which is Sweet Mayhem. A historic milestone right there!

I'm not falling for this, not when a friends set is void of cute pets (or Zobo in a science related build).

This is brilliant. Much better than the City equivalent. Amazing part selection with the purple windows, flex tubes and gyroscope.

That's a great shuttle, better then the city space shuttles!

They look thin even with the space suit. I can’t imagine how thin these astronauts are without the suits!

Also, I think a disco flavour in this set (or a disco NASA sub theme) would be interesting.

Classic Friends always being better than their city counterpart.

Another space shuttle... Come on, that thing is ancient!
I love the little planets and their orbits.

I am curious to find out what the other space sets for friends will be. Can’t be just one, right?

This set looks really good and that space institute can be a great add to any lego city. Maybe different plates to match the sidewalks or something and use less stickers. Also get rid of the bridge for the shuttle and make it a museum about the galaxy. I like the colours. That solar system in the front of the building is genious.

My daughter would have loved it, if she didn’t hate lego friends

@cluening said:
"I really want to know more about the economy in Heartlake City. They already have tons of horses, stables, schools, malls, coffee shops, and amusement parks. Now they have developed a space program too?!"

I think they are selling those ‘rescued’ animals on the black market.

I'm impressed that the shuttle can balance on such a tiny platform. Hopefully, when you try to move the shuttle does not fall over.

Cool little detail with the working tellurion and the building design with the solar system is awesome, but we had better Space Shuttles in City, plus it's obsolete now.
But 70 EUR / 60 GBP for 757 pieces is not a bad deal compared to City.

I mostly build and buy City and don't normally buy Friends but this set interests me FAR more than the 2022 City Space stuff does.

City Space Agency astronauts didn't get any sealed cookie packets!

@NatureBricks said:
" @jkb said:
"Are they aliens? Or are they just from a parallel universe, where Minidolls developed instead of Minifigs? It's a mystery and I'm going to uncover it!"

Didn't The LEGO Movie 2 show that minidolls are from another galaxy?"

City and Heartlake City cross referenced eachother in train and airplane sets multiple times in recent years.

@TeriXeri said:
" @NatureBricks said:
" @jkb said:
"Are they aliens? Or are they just from a parallel universe, where Minidolls developed instead of Minifigs? It's a mystery and I'm going to uncover it!"

Didn't The LEGO Movie 2 show that minidolls are from another galaxy?"

City and Heartlake City cross referenced eachother in train and airplane sets multiple times in recent years."
And even in this very set — one of the computer screens shows an image of the LEGO City Lunar Space Station!

I'm SUPER impressed with this set. For years I've been thinking that a space camp type set would be a great fit for LEGO Friends, and this set has just about everything I could have hoped for from a set like that! It's got? training equipment, an observatory, an orrery, a model rocket, a satellite, and plenty of computers for mission simulations and monitoring, as well as multiple types of spacesuit.

The aesthetics are also gorgeous, with an exciting color scheme, fancy holographic foil stickers, and some amazing "space age" architecture and signage. One charming detail I wouldn't have anticipated is the wall of space telescope photographs, all captioned with the name or ID number? that astronomers use to identify those objects! That's a very nice touch with some genuine educational value. The little packets of space food are also a great new accessory.

That's not to say there's no room for improvement. The most obvious shortcoming is the lack? of an external? fuel tank and?? rocket boosters???, although that probably have raised the set's cost quite a bit (between their parts and the need for a larger crawler transporter to carry the full shuttle assembly?? instead of just the orbiter).

I'm also slightly miffed that this set doesn't include either a? mini-doll of Olivia's dad Lucas (who works as an astronaut in the animated series) or any version of Zobo, who'd be a natural fit for the set's subject matter. So far, Zobo hasn't been in ANY new Friends sets of the past two years, which worries me a bit since he's always been such a fun part of the theme and I'd hate for him to disappear for good. :(

And in terms of aesthetics, I kind of wish that the shuttle itself had a Tr. Bright Bluish Violet or Tr. Light Blue tinted windscreen, both to match the windows of the space center and because fun bright colors are very traditional for both LEGO Friends and LEGO Space. Besides being less boring, a tinted windscreen of some kind would feel somewhat more accurate to the real space shuttle.

But in spite of those misgivings, I still feel that this is really outstanding work by the LEGO Friends design team, and it makes me very eager to learn what else is in store? for this summer. Hopefully any sets inspired by the other friends' respective interests/hobbies will exhibit just as much creativity, detail, and care as this one!

I'm a space shuttle collector so I can't wait! Keep it up Friends!

This is an interesting attempt to expand the friends line. I am not surprised as LEGO is working hard to break stereotypes and steer girls into STEM. It would be interesting to see the sales numbers in this compared to say a horse farm.

Looks great.

So, there’s a full observatory for what is essentially a large backyard telescope placed next to a space center that’s likely to have tons of lit but pollution even when there’s no launch scheduled. We have a space shuttle with so little onboard fuel it won’t make it 100 feet in the air, much less 100 miles. It’s also sitting on a toy crawler that’s so tiny it’ll be incinerated the instant they fire up the mains. We have a satellite that’s got less battery life than a year-old iPhone. And we have NASA transporting a minor off the planet. Is that a felony? It feels like a felony.

On the other hand, the almost-gyroscope trainer (not sure how you add a legitimate third axis at that scale), the orrery, and the map of the inner planets show some creativity. But it says it’s a “Space Academy” on the side of the building. Back when I was in elementary school, one of the kids in my grade went to “Space Camp”, where they probably got to sample some of what NASA astronauts go through in training, maybe run some simulator missions, and bring home some astronaut ice cream that you can take to school in the fall to prove you really went to Space Camp. Is this supposed to be a real launch, or is this more of a fancy vacation for kids situation? I mean, kids are going to play with it however they want, but I’m curious about what the designer intended.

@ForestMenOfEndor:
Not until we invent a more efficient means of propulsion. The two shuttles we lost were too heavy to reach the Hubble. The most recent couldn’t pull off a moon shot. None of them could manage a return launch from the moon.

@blogzilly:
The “no man” version dates back to the second pilot episode of ST:TOS, which uses it as its title. The monologue incorporating it was added for the first regular production episode. ST:TNG updated the monologue from “five year mission” to “ongoing mission”, and changed the wording back to “no one”, which is how it appeared in the 1958 “Introduction to Outer Space” pamphlet that the White House published in the wake of the Sputnik launch. This pamphlet is believed to be the direct inspiration for the Star Trek monologue, but it also basically launched NASA.

That I know of, the only thing NASA has taken from Star Trek is the name of the Space Shuttle program’s non-flightworthy test orbiter, which was only done after a huge fan campaign. They did approach JMS about the possibility of using the Babylon 5 Starfury design, though. He agreed on the condition that it be called a Starfury, but nothing ever came from it.

@NatureBricks:
I take notice of all Friends sets. I don’t buy them, but they sometimes have interesting parts that aren’t available elsewhere. I recently snagged 41665 because it has wearable cat ears that I needed for Squirrel Girl.

@holdre007:
It helps if someone gets out and pushes.

@augen:
Pink is a color that has been heavily and repeatedly marketed to girls. A century ago, opinions were split on whether it was a color for girls, or, if being a shade of red, it was too “strong” a color for girls. What you’re seeing is merely the result of that disagreement eventually being settled. The same sort of marketing tricks have been used to convince US buyers they need trucks or SUVs, since those have significantly relaxed environmental standards over sedans.

@fulcrumbop:
Aw, shucks…

@illennium:
That’s…interesting. Of course, they did benefit from it, as space exploration saw a steady drop in popularity following Apollo 11. By the middle of the Space Shuttle program, the appeal of space flight had been compared with riding a bus. Seeing people wearing NASA shirts undoubtedly rekindled at least some interest, to the point that we’re seriously working towards another moon landing. We’re not racing anyone right now, but we’re starting a third generation of voters who weren’t born early enough to watch live footage from the moon, and their budget continues to grow most years.

@Joefish:
You mean on the shuttle cabin? I see no evidence of studs, so the cabin roof may be mounted on something along the back edge.

@Aanchir:
Historically, very few Space Shuttle sets have an external fuel tank or boosters. 1682 was the first in 1990. There’s 6339 in 1995, and then you have to skip forward 15 years for 10213/10231 actually did it right. City didn’t get a proper orange tank until 60080, and 60099 devoted a day to just the tank and boosters. There’s been 21312, possibly 60201, and of course 70923 had Batman’s operating budget backing it up. Out of over 30 sets that use the NASA shuttle design, that’s it. Of course 6544 appears to be the only one that put one on the back of a jet plane, so there are still lower rungs on the ladder.

@PurpleDave said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor:
Not until we invent a more efficient means of propulsion. The two shuttles we lost were too heavy to reach the Hubble. The most recent couldn’t pull off a moon shot. None of them could manage a return launch from the moon."

I'm thinking that they will technically be different vehicles (rockets with capsules, etc.), but that we'll call them shuttles anyway out of convenience. :) Ps. I attended Space Camp in Huntsville, AL back in the early '90s. It was an awesome experience, even if I was a bit hesitant to strap into that gyroscope. Our house will be treating this set as an Academy for sure!

@PurpleDave said:
" @blogzilly:
The “no man” version dates back to the second pilot episode of ST:TOS, which uses it as its title. The monologue incorporating it was added for the first regular production episode. ST:TNG updated the monologue from “five year mission” to “ongoing mission”, and changed the wording back to “no one”, which is how it appeared in the 1958 “Introduction to Outer Space” pamphlet that the White House published in the wake of the Sputnik launch. This pamphlet is believed to be the direct inspiration for the Star Trek monologue, but it also basically launched NASA.

That I know of, the only thing NASA has taken from Star Trek is the name of the Space Shuttle program’s non-flightworthy test orbiter, which was only done after a huge fan campaign. They did approach JMS about the possibility of using the Babylon 5 Starfury design, though. He agreed on the condition that it be called a Starfury, but nothing ever came from it."

Either I never knew or I forgot that Enterprise the Shuttle wasn’t a fully functional shuttle. It was such a big deal when it was named Enterprise. I was just a kid, Star Wars hadn’t come out yet, so Star Trek was still one of the biggest things in my kidverse (though Doctor Who had just started running on our local VHF channel and I was mesmerized by it, same with Johnny Sokko and Ultraman and other sci-fi imports).

I only quoted the revised Trek line as I thought it cool that Friends, traditionally a “girls” theme, was doing space, traditionally considered a “boys” subject. I like that. Reminded me of Trek and how it always championed this kind of inclusion.

@ForestMenOfEndor:
But you can’t break physics. It took the Saturn V rocket filled with the energy equivalent of over 540 tons of TNT, which could put just shy of 50 tons in lunar orbit, all to put two humans on the moon’s surface and bring them back.

The Space Shuttle could lift about 30 tons to low earth orbit, but it used more powerful rocket motors, and more energy-dense fuel to do so. Even the lightest orbiter weighed so much it didn’t have lunar capability.

To get the components of a functional lunar living space on the moon, you’re talking dozens of unmanned launches for short-term occupancy, maybe hundreds for long-term, the Saturn V system is only capable of delivering a single passenger with minimal luggage per launch, and you’re talking about scaling that up to anywhere from 10-100 passengers per launch. You could significantly boost your lift capability by switching to solid fuel, like the Space Shuttle booster rockets, but they have no off switch, so you can’t rely exclusively on them. And they still won’t get you enough of a lift capacity boost that passenger flights to the moon will be economically feasible. To make lunar tourism a common occurrence, we might need to be able to harness the equivalent energy of a hydrogen bomb as cheaply as filling up a passenger jet with fuel.

@blogzilly:
Yup, it was originally going to be named Constitution, and was planned to be refitted for eventual addition to the functional orbiter fleet. I have to wonder if NASA’s non-commercial clause kept it grounded, or if it was all about the potential weight savings if they built a completely new orbiter based on what they’d learned from the early STS launches. Also, now that I’ve looked up the timing, I wonder if the test orbiter would have still been named Enterprise if the shuttle program had been started one year later.

@PurpleDave You are of course entitled to your opinion on pink being a marketing trick, however as I stated, there has been extensive research understaken both by psychologists and scientists that would disagree with you. I believe in science.

@augen:
Mark Twain would like to have a word with you regarding statistics.

@augen said:
" @PurpleDave You are of course entitled to your opinion on pink being a marketing trick, however as I stated, there has been extensive research understaken both by psychologists and scientists that would disagree with you. I believe in science."

Nobody's saying that the popularity of pink among girls isn't real, but science hasn't really found any sort of evidence that it's biologically innate rather than learned. There's no ethical way to really test that sort of thing, since to do so would require a large sample group of kids raised in complete isolation from the societal and cultural influences that other kids experience when growing up.

But while the topic of "nature vs. nurture" may be of great interest to scientists studying child psychology and development, I don't think it's really of much significance here. Kids' preferences are just as real and legitimate no matter WHAT early life experiences might have influenced them.

If a child tells you that they like certain types of colors, toys, foods, clothing, etc, there's no point to telling them "yeah, but you're just following along with trends" or "yeah, but that's only because of marketing" (or any similarly dismissive response). After all, any experiences that might've helped lead them towards their perspective are still their own, and nobody can go back and erase those experiences or the perspective that emerged from them.

In any case, I think it's a bit irritating that just about any LEGO Friends set is met with these sorts of complaints about aspects of the design and color scheme being too gendered or stereotypical, when hardly anybody is applying that sort of scrutiny to other themes.

I mean, look at set 42128. A big, beefy toy truck? Aggressive, blocky typefaces? Intense comic-book-style graphics of a muscular giant surrounded by lightning? Marketing that emphasizes attributes like strength, complexity, sophistication, and coolness over ones like care, passion, style, or beauty? Box graphics with dark, understated colors, gritty backdrops, and bold, all-caps header fonts?

Like much of the Technic theme, it's practically dripping with masculine stereotypes — including the sort you might just as easily expect to find on a can of men's deodorant or an ad for a demolition derby. But comments about sets of that sort rarely fault LEGO for catering to those sorts of stereotypically masculine tastes and preferences, or even question those sorts of strategic decisions.

So it feels a bit tiresome when pretty much any article about sets from themes like Friends, Elves, and Dots gets a bunch of comments for lamenting or criticizing any colors or other features perceived as less than "gender-neutral". To say nothing of the weird tendency to criticize sets from other themes like Creator as "too Friends-ish" when they include similar colors or features.

Why shouldn't a space center be decorated in shades of blue or purple (the sort that are among the first Google Image Search results for "space colors")? Why should magenta stripes on a space shuttle elicit groans or grumbling, while the equally unrealistic bright red stripes on a City or Creator space shuttle are accepted as harmless creative license?

I'm glad that so much of the feedback for this set is positive, but even so, it's frustrating how often Friends sets like this one are treated as cool and fun in spite of the aspects that are perceived as "girly" — as if girliness is a fundamental fault or weakness that a proper LEGO theme should be expected to rise above.

@Aanchir:
Direct testing may be unethical, but the ad industry probably has a lot of data on marketing to kids. Federal regulations banned making TV shows based on existing toy lines, so toy companies quickly adapted to launch shows before the toys hit the market, because now you’ve got an ad-supported ad series that kids will give their full attention to. Even TLG has data regarding the success of Big Bang themes vs unsupported launches. Also, you can look internationally to see what girls born outside of the US like.

For space, the color I think of most is black, because that’s what we see when we look at it. For spaceflight, the color I immediately think of is white, because that’s the main color of most of NASA’s spacecraft. When people start thinking of all the photography they’ve seen (like from the Hubble), most of that is color-processed to make it easier for scientists to study, and looks nothing like what you’d actually see if you were there. Red and blue are commonly associated with spaceflight because they’re trim colors used by NASA, because they’re colors of the US flag. Soviet spacecraft tended to be painted an ugly shade of green because their space program was an extension of their military, and they painted them like other military vehicles.

Regarding the pink issue, I think it gets grief from both sides of the argument, with some people hating that there’s so much pink because they don’t want anything pink for their boys. On the flip side, other people object to the “pinkification” of girls toys (or that toys are separated into boys and girls aisles at all). But someone recently pointed out to me that the minidolls were critical to the success of Friends because mothers and grandmothers buy toys for little girls, so between that and the color-coding of girls toy aisles, I don’t think the pink thing is going away in my lifetime. Not with at least five generations of recursive reinforcement.

This looks better than the city set

While I get its a toy, the launch platform being stuck to the side of the academy building bothers me. Thats just alot of casualities waiting to happen