Review: 60348 Lunar Roving Vehicle

Looks great but does it come with stickers or are they all printed pieces?

The visors can't be opened... But we're on the Moon! Of course they can't.
Apart from that, too bad that the flag is a stickered one.

That new crystal piece is amazing, definitely will use it as a waterfall piece.

I'm liking the City Space sets a lot. They have the same feel to me as the previous Arctic sets which were also excellent.

@NatureBricks said:
"25 pounds is $33USD, set cost $40USD. I love the fact LEGO now screws USA fans more than any other country for City sets."
Unfortunately City sets in the US seem to be trending towards higher prices to allow for discounts. Licensed sets seem to be the increasingly better value for the parts count and complexity. The large road pieces aren’t helping either.

Excellent review! At $30 I’d buy this set.

I believe this is as close as we can get to "Classic Space" in a regular (non-nostalgic) theme. And I think it's really great!

Some photos of the interior would have been nice.

@kingalbino said:
"Looks great but does it come with stickers or are they all printed pieces?"

Why don't you try READING THE ARTICLE???

@District928 said:
"The visors can't be opened... But we're on the Moon! Of course they can't.
Apart from that, too bad that the flag is a stickered one."
In real space suits, the gold visors are used as a sun shield (think sunglasses) and can be moved up. The helmet below holds in the air.

Great review. I love this set, can't wait to get it. The Rambling Brick has a review that has comparison photos with the old Classic Space All Terrain Vehicle, it's a good match and they look great together!

I’d really like to introduce somebody to Buzz Aldrin.

For those people out there that do not believe there were men on the moon: fine, you may not believe or are able to refute any technological proofs but there is one argument above all that can't be refuted. Namely: "the space race". See, the USA were in a race against the USSR to send a man on the moon. Do you think for one second that the USA would fake a moon landing and the Soviets would just say: "hey cool, we'll play along on your lie". That alone is proof that they've done it.

I Like this set and the base companion - and the space station is not bad either - now we need spacecrafts (to travel in space - not just those from earth to space, we have those already). I would prefer a colour scheme closer to the classic space theme but it seems Lego is as stubborn as can be in NOT providing its fan base what it wants.

I still think these sets should be labelled "SPACE" and not "CITY". Make Space a theme again!

Thanks everyone for the comments.

@MrClassic - apologies, I tried to take some photos of the interior but struggled with the size of the lens on my DSLR! The cab is relatively basic; the pilot has 20482s and 1 x 1 console tiles on either side, and two printed control panels at the rear. The cargo section has a combination of 2 x 2 part-studded tiles and 1 x 4 panels on the floor.

@ecleme11 - The interior is large enough to fit four minifigures; two can fit comfortably in the cargo section although best seated due to the limited height!

IMHO, it's a frustrating set for a collector of 80s and 90s Space set like me - and same goes for every "City space" sets.
All those sets have pretty good design, great part selection... and are actually close in spirit with Classic Space (and even Futuron, etc)
But... for me, they don't goes well in display next to the old sets... the differences of era and philosophy become too obvious.
Too bad, really, because I really think these sets are very good in their own "reality". But I don't have the place to have several separated Space collections...
Anyway : thanks to the Lego group for these great sets, I think they can really please children and AFOLs who don't have my (very specific) problem with them !

@crimson said:
"IMHO, it's a frustrating set for a collector of 80s and 90s Space set like me - and same goes for every "City space" sets.
All those sets have pretty good design, great part selection... and are actually close in spirit with Classic Space (and even Futuron, etc)
But... for me, they don't goes well in display next to the old sets... the differences of era and philosophy become too obvious.
Too bad, really, because I really think these sets are very good in their own "reality". But I don't have the place to have several separated Space collections...
Anyway : thanks to the Lego group for these great sets, I think they can really please children and AFOLs who don't have my (very specific) problem with them !
"

I usually think of these as a nice middle ground between fantasy and reality. A lot of these new sets are kind of like peering into a “what if?” kind of scenario, which I think is a big appeal of science fiction! I like to think the Classic astronauts probably had gear like this at some point.

Although I think the reason that Classic Space and New Space as I call it don’t click is because of just how much LEGO itself has evolved. I think Classic is charming due to how they take bulky and pretty strange part combinations but somehow make them work for each faction. Here, the goal is to make things have a somewhat sleeker kind of futuristic design.

@NatureBricks said:
"25 pounds is $33USD, set cost $40USD. I love the fact LEGO now screws USA fans more than any other country for City sets."

"... more than any other country..."? I think not. US$40 = NZ$58, but the set costs NZ$60. The US has had a lengthy period of being subsidised by the rest of the world, so it's nice to see some semblance of parity at last.

I just compared a handful of recent City sets and most cost more in NZ$ than US$ (using xe.com for conversions). Since NZ prices haven't dropped, the obvious conclusion is that LEGO is now vastly overpriced *everywhere*!

@Mayaking:
"Those astronauts look like their bouncing around in stage lights."
I think it has been argued that no stage light easily available at the time could have convincingly replicated the brightness of the sun on the lunar surface.
"Why are there no stars in the pictures?"
The camera settings were not designed to capture faint stars but to capture objects and features on the bright lunar surface in the lunar day.
"The amount of fuel that would be needed to get to the moon would be larger than the Apollo shuttle"
Remember as a rocket consumes fuel, it gets lighter and thus accelerates. As fuel in the different stages was consumed, the stages were subsequently discarded and thus the spacecraft became smaller and lighter. Also there is no friction to slow you down in the vacuum of space so an engine does not need to be continuously lit for a burn. The gravitational fields of both the Earth and moon were also utilized for some of the work – really engines just needed to be burned for liftoff, to enter/escape earth orbit, to enter/escape lunar orbit, and course corrections.
"And why, with all of our modern advancements have we never sent people back to the moon?"
Once America ‘won’ the space race, government funding and interest for project Apollo quickly dried up (the Soviets abandoned their own troubled manned lunar program for space stations once it was obvious America was going to win). Many NASA personnel lamented the fact that the Apollo program became essentially a PR stunt – there were follow-up ambitions to set up space stations, lunar colonies, and even missions to Mars building off of the technologies and knowledge gained but these were essentially abandoned due to lack of government funding after the first moon landings were complete.

I think the primary argument for not doubting the moon landings comes from just reading about the many amazing people who worked at NASA in the 60s. Thousands of engineers, manufacturers, technicians, scientists, flight controllers, and astronauts dedicated large part of that decade working hard together (often at the expense of their own family lives) to answer Kennedy’s challenge to put a man on the moon and bring him back safely before the end of the decade first - before the Soviets. If you just look at the astronauts in the 60s, you will find that most of them were military test pilots – people dedicated to pushing the boundaries in aero/astronautics. These were supremely competent, borderline arrogant, no-nonsense types who would not have backed down from the ultimate engineering challenge nor have participated in some massive government hoax. Some of them even saw it as their patriotic duty to beat the Soviets to the moon.

In the end, taking into account the hardware built and the tremendous coordination of manpower utilized for the lunar missions, it appears that it would have taken far more effort and expense to fake landing on the moon than to just have actually gone there.

@crimson said:
"IMHO, it's a frustrating set for a collector of 80s and 90s Space set like me - and same goes for every "City space" sets.
All those sets have pretty good design, great part selection... and are actually close in spirit with Classic Space (and even Futuron, etc)
But... for me, they don't goes well in display next to the old sets... the differences of era and philosophy become too obvious.
Too bad, really, because I really think these sets are very good in their own "reality". But I don't have the place to have several separated Space collections...
Anyway : thanks to the Lego group for these great sets, I think they can really please children and AFOLs who don't have my (very specific) problem with them !
"

I’d honestly be worried if the current space sets slotted in perfectly with those from days of yore. For better or worse, at least LEGO’s design department isn’t stagnating.

@Mayaking said:
" @LordDunsany said:
" @Mayaking :
Remember, NASA's operations were not closed to the public like the Soviet space program was. You also have to consider that the effort for the moon landings involved not just NASA but dozens if not hundreds of contractors and subcontractors (and their multiple employees) that worked to build the millions of parts and components that composed the Apollo spacecraft. Apollos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 all went to the moon (with 8, 10, and 13 not landing) and brought back tons of detailed gravitational, geological, imaging, spectrometry, and other scientific data (not to mention thousands of individually cataloged samples totaling 840 pounds) that have been used for subsequent scientific studies. The sheer scale of coordinating all of this for movie fakes just seems extremely unlikely."

If your referring to rock samples there are many rare rocks that in the world they could use. They wouldn't just let anyone go and study those rocks. The people studying them would be NASA geologists that are either payed to keep quiet or were in on the whole thing. The government has billions of dollars and tons of time to row something like a staged landing with staged data. They may have even taken authentic data from other space missions. Those people probably weren't even told that they were working for a staged landing.
About those stars. On earth which has an atmosphere we can easily capture stars on camera. Why would there absolutely no stars on the moon which has no atmosphere. They would be even more visible from the moon than from earth. Radio doesn't even work from the moon so how would those astronauts be talking to people through the empty space.
"

Irrefutable proof we landed men on the moon and who placed laser reflectors on the moon's surface during Apollo missions 11, 14 and 15. Anyone on earth with a high-powered laser can verify this since 1969 which many studying astrophysics here on earth do without ever setting foot in space or low earth orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

To deny this and advocate some sort of government conspiracy is plain wrong.

Fruit loops are put on this planet for laughing at, not for wasting time and space having off topic debates with.

@Mayaking:

By denying the moon landings, you are potentially doing a great disservice to the science, engineering, long hours, and sacrifices (astronauts died, people suffered mental breakdowns, families collapsed) people made to make them possible.

It does appear that you are approaching this from a very cynical worldview and thus no amount of evidence presented will likely change your views. However, some of your criticisms do reveal a weak grasp of physics. Long camera exposure times are necessary to capture stars but would end up with overexposed images of the bright lunar surface, thus the shorter exposure times used for useful images of the lunar surface would not capture faint stars. Radio waves (like all electromagnetic radiation) can propagate fine in the vacuum of space (you are likely confusing this with sound as sound waves do require a medium to propagate).

@Mayaking said:
"… drivel… "

Oh, give it up, science denier. You’re one of those people who “do their own research” without considering the veracity of the sources.

It took a tremendous amount of national talent and treasure to do this. “Everybody was in on the conspiracy” is one of the lamest arguments. You think *everyone* at NASA and all the contractors were all patriots who wanted to beat the Soviets? Why is there no credible evidence of leaks and cover ups?

In about 10 years men will be on the moon again, and they will visit the original landing sites. I hope I am still around to laugh in your face.

There are plausible refutations to *all* of your accusations, but you either don’t understand the science or refuse to understand it. You call yourself open minded, but you are the opposite of that.