LEGO Ideas Discussion

[Lyichir]

10 minutes ago, VaderFan2187 said:

@Blondie-Wan my point is that, if you take away the minifigures in most Ideas sets, the builds themselves still look good.

Wall-E = really great, didn't even come with a minifigure right?

Big Bang Theory = decent living room

Ecto-1 = Not a fan of Ghostbusters, but it's undoubtedly a good car

Back to the Future = The build was junk but it tried to represent something iconic from the movie

Birds and Maze didn't even have minifigures.

Take away the minifigures from Research institute & "Hidden Minifigures (jk…)", and you have a series of very underwhelming vignettes.

Underwhelming is a very subjective description. While the vignettes in this new set aren't necessarily equally interesting, the micro space shuttle at least is quite nice, and there's the very real possibility that the others may be "beefed up" a bit for the final set design. Similarly, the vignettes in the Research Institute are fairly solid builds—the chemistry table, telescope, and dinosaur fossil are all unique, if small, builds that are far more detailed than similar models from previous sets. The set might not be as interactive or contextualized without the figures, but the same would apply if you arbitrarily removed unifying elements from ANY set. That doesn't mean that the set as a whole is any less valid than others.

[Blondie-Wan]

15 minutes ago, VaderFan2187 said:

@Blondie-Wan my point is that, if you take away the minifigures in most Ideas sets, the builds themselves still look good.

Wall-E = really great, didn't even come with a minifigure right?

Big Bang Theory = decent living room

Ecto-1 = Not a fan of Ghostbusters, but it's undoubtedly a good car

Back to the Future = The build was junk but it tried to represent something iconic from the movie

Birds and Maze didn't even have minifigures.

Take away the minifigures from Research institute & "Hidden Minifigures (jk…)", and you have a series of very underwhelming vignettes.

See, I'd argue that at least the paleontologist vignette in Research Institute is at least as clever a build as the living room in The Big Bang Theory. It's smaller, of course, but that doesn't make it a less interesting or satisfying build. Different strokes, and all that. It's certainly true Research Institute wouldn't be nearly as interesting without the minifigures, but the same is true for The Big Bang Theory (and, to a lesser extent, virtually all the CUUSOO / Ideas sets that have minifigures - or virtually all sets with minifigures, for that matter). I think we can safely assume there'd be far less interest in the The Big Bang Theory set if it didn't have the minifigures, only the living room.

2 hours ago, GREG998 said:

Saturn V is not a scientist, yet it is science related. Saturn V wil be the star of its set, human will only be guests. Science is the product of scientist, so Wall-E, is even more than a scientist: it's the embodiement of science.

WALL•E isn't a celebration of science in the same way as the Saturn V, though. And if it were, it would just strengthen my point even more about how much science is an area of particular interest to Ideas users.

2 hours ago, GREG998 said:

 

 

The project might be popular with plenty but very impopular with plenty to. It's divisive. A toy company should avoid that.

The project itself isn't divisive; if anything, it seeks to invite more women and girls into interests from which they've traditionally been marginalized and excluded. The fact some people object to the idea of sets themed around women in science isn't the fault of the set or its designer, but of those objectors.

2 hours ago, GREG998 said:

Naturaly, i respect what is your point of view but i think the fact to not approv some forms of contemporary feminism doesn't make you an adept of misogyny or other kind of misplaced, stupid, ressent against woman. The same way, the "erroneous" impression is perhaps not so erroneous. We can't really know unless we are "in the secret of".

I don't know what you mean by "some forms of contemporary feminism", but feminism in general is widely, widely misunderstood to mean things it actually doesn't. There shouldn't be any reason to object to the set; it's not as though it promotes anything negative. And it's hard to see objecting to a set of accomplished women as anything other than rejecting women's accomplishments.

As far as the rest of it goes, everything we know about LEGO Ideas strongly indicates they evaluates each project individually. There is simply no reason to think a different project from the batch would have been approved if this one hadn't been, and extensive reason to think the others that were declined would still have been declined whether this project were even around or not. Most of them were huge, for one thing. Several of them also involve licenses. At least one of the latter, the Spaceballs project, is widely thought to involve license issues that make it extremely difficult for anyone to do merchandise from it, under any circumstances.

We are also already getting two very large Ideas sets this year, both of them larger than any other Ideas set to date; there simply may not be room in LEGO's limited production capacity for more huge sets in the near future. Women of NASA is small and super-easy to do, and doesn't have the same license issues as most of the other licensed projects (though it may have some), and on top of that it is an extremely popular project that got massive coverage and got its support faster than just about everything else in the batch (note that the Voltron project, which is still under review, was also an extremely fast vote-getter). There is simply no good reason not to do this set (people who are upset at seeing minifigures of women are not what I'd call a good reason).

2 hours ago, GREG998 said:

Anyway, the project is not yet a set and a retool in a more inclusiv/ less divisive perspectiv would be wishable. All depends who will give the final green light. I'm 100% ok with science related projet as i've ever been a space exploration enthusiast, knowing by their name all launcher/rocket since the age of 4.  Off topic but I'd like to build a BIG, VERY big Vostok or R7 rocket...ever been facinated y the engine shape of this launchers.

Same here. Honestly, I'd love it if they approved even more science projects than they already do, though my wallet surely wouldn't.

[Aanchir]

2 hours ago, GREG998 said:

The project might be popular with plenty but very impopular with plenty to. It's divisive. A toy company should avoid that.

All sets are divisive. Star Wars sets are divisive. Bionicle sets are divisive. City sets are divisive. Ninjago sets are divisive. Friends sets are divisive. Minecraft sets are divisive. Show me a set that isn't divisive in one way or another and I'll show you a liar.

Ideas sets are also somewhat niche by design. If they were things everybody would obviously like, LEGO wouldn't need fans to point those opportunities out to them. As such, it goes without saying that any Ideas set worth making will alienate many people.

What is outrageous here is that so many fans argue the idea that all-female sets is "political" in nature, that their divisiveness has some special quality that delegitimizes them where the divisiveness of an ordinary set would not. Which is absurd. All this set is saying is that women in NASA history are cool and important and more people should know about and identify with and look up to them. If that is a political or ideological statement, it is an uplifting one that harms no one.

To some people, LEGO City police sets could be considered political or ideological, framing police as heroes when historically they have been agents of oppression in many countries across many decades. Star Wars sets could be considered political or ideological with their heavy anti-fascist themes of rebellion against an evil empire. I see few people arguing against these sets on those grounds. Why, then, is "women are cool" so abjectly offensive that some people can't stand even two sets existing with that message? It seems to me that it's the critics of this set who are needlessly injecting politics/ideology into it, not its supporters.

[VaderFan2187]

8 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

All this set is saying is that women in NASA history are cool and important and more people should know about and identify with and look up to them. If that is a political or ideological statement, it is an uplifting one that harms no one.

But I heard someone say that they left one of the most famous women out… don't exactly remember who, but it seemed many others agreed. If you're going to honor them don't leave them out.

9 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

Star Wars sets could be considered political or ideological with their heavy anti-fascist themes of rebellion against an evil empire. 

Well you could consider it anti-communist as well…

[Blondie-Wan]

1 hour ago, VaderFan2187 said:

But I heard someone say that they left one of the most famous women out… don't exactly remember who, but it seemed many others agreed. If you're going to honor them don't leave them out.

The idea is to have representation. LEGO cannot produce a set with every single woman who has ever worked for NASA; they are not going to produce a set - any set, in any theme - with several thousand minifigures.

Even if they were inclined to do so, that would be fundamentally different from the Ideas project that people supported. They cannot approve a project with five minifigures and perhaps a couple hundred pieces whose supporters reasonably expected to buy for somewhere between $30 and $50, change it into the largest and most expensive set in history, and reasonably expect those supporters to pay tens of thousands of dollars for it.

So... why this particular selection? I believe the creator touches on that in her project's description and updates. If you want more detail you'll have to ask her, but I think it's safe to say each was chosen for some particularly noteworthy accomplishment.

Mind you, while the final set will obviously not have thousands upon thousands of minifigures, it's entirely possible there might be five different women chosen for the set from those presented in the project, although the project is probably a good indicator of who we'll see.

 

1 hour ago, GREG998 said:

That would induce no criticism should be done on the core of this set or this kind of political set (politic being the sience of the "city", IT is a political set)? Sorry but i don't agree. Not only with your point of view but also with the manner you have to dismiss others point of view....basicaly using like a bomber the lexical registry of "No", "It's not" or using sophistic ad lib. Perhaps it's not your aim but it can be kinda "heavy" to read.

You, as me, are not holder of the absolute truth.

I never said I was, and you're inaccurately summarizing my arguments. But I am every bit as entitled to criticize those critics' criticisms as they are to make them in the first place, just as you're free to criticize my own criticisms of their criticisms. And I, in turn, am free to criticize your criticisms of my criticisms of their criticisms. We can do this all day.

That said, I just have a very hard time taking seriously those critics whose arguments against this set appear boil down to not wanting a set devoted to women of NASA, when women are so grossly underrepresented in most LEGO sets in general, and especially in STEM roles. I don't see those same critics complaining every time LEGO releases a set containing minifigures of men only, or one in which most or all of the scientists, explorers, engineers, programmers and discoverers are men, or one with minifigure representations of real-life men but not of real-life women. Why, then, are they so upset when one measly set with a handful of real-life inspirational women gets approved?

[VaderFan2187]

2 minutes ago, Blondie-Wan said:

Why, then, are they so upset when one measly set with a handful of real-life inspirational women gets approved?

Maybe because it IS a measly set? If it was a full NASA Space Station full of women of NASA I think it would be much better received, but as it is now, I'm sure many can quickly build it in LDD. The build is honestly pointless.

[Artanis I]

6 hours ago, GREG998 said:

The project might be popular with plenty but very impopular with plenty to. It's divisive. A toy company should avoid that.

Naturaly, i respect what is your point of view but i think the fact to not approv some forms of contemporary feminism doesn't make you an adept of misogyny or other kind of misplaced, stupid, ressent against woman.

Anyway, the project is not yet a set and a retool in a more inclusiv/ less divisive perspectiv would be wishable.

After all the hoo-ha about the "female minifigure set" I bought the Research Institute on the merits of the final TLG product, so if this one is shaped into something of quality and is appropriate I will consider it on those merits too.

3 hours ago, Blondie-Wan said:

The project itself isn't divisive; if anything, it seeks to invite more women and girls into interests from which they've traditionally been marginalized and excluded. The fact some people object to the idea of sets themed around women in science isn't the fault of the set or its designer, but of those objectors.

I don't know what you mean by "some forms of contemporary feminism", but feminism in general is widely, widely misunderstood to mean things it actually doesn't. There shouldn't be any reason to object to the set; it's not as though it promotes anything negative. And it's hard to see objecting to a set of accomplished women as anything other than rejecting women's accomplishments.

The project is about a "message" (is the message intended to be divisive? Probably not.) It certainly isn't much about the Lego build. (That message is ultimately supposed to be something like "women are people too", nothing wrong with that message, but has it been presented well? Is that an appropriate thing for TLG to jump on board with, since they disallow politics, religion & social issues?) Put forward a set where the minifigs or people represented aren't all the same gender or nationality or colour (but a fair mix) and that is where you can be sure that your message more clearly says "women are people too". What this project says to me is "women aren't as good as men so we need to give them a special medal any time they reach a level that many men do", and is therefore either condescending, and/or alienates the men from NASA & the people (women & men) from other space programmes who didn't receive as much fanfare for their equivalent (or higher) achievements. The reason it says to me "aren't as good" rather than the more intended "aren't as involved/represented" is because this is supposedly celebrating the achievements of those people, not their involvement/representation.

It selectively includes particular real-life people, while also selectively ignoring particular real-life people. I said once before, selective celebration promotes division, by alienating others if nothing else. It seems that most of the objection to this set is either its (apparent or true) lack of build quality (ie the project is only successful due to the message attached to it and that's not what Lego is about), or that there's something wrong with the message or it's portrayal. No one here is "rejecting women's accomplishments", and that comment is bullying. Just because someone sees something different from what you do when they look at something doesn't make them wrong, surely you know that.

If you want balance, promote balance. "Anybody can science!" would be a better message to be sending (it even has that modern noun-as-verb thing going for it). You don't have to fit some kind of stereotype. Here are some generic minifigs of all shapes & sizes sciencing.

[Littleworlds]

I think the set will be very popular and seems to be more on the impulse-buy side than a Saturn V 

So I see them as rather complementary really from that point. Its just healthy to have small sets in your portfolio as well.

[x105Black]

14 hours ago, Artanis I said:

If you want balance, promote balance. "Anybody can science!" would be a better message to be sending (it even has that modern noun-as-verb thing going for it). You don't have to fit some kind of stereotype. Here are some generic minifigs of all shapes & sizes sciencing.

I like this.

I applaud LEGO for their choice to celebrate the women of NASA, as the accomplishments and representations of women are often overlooked, especially in science.  In reality, it's an important set with an important message.

However, I also feel that balance and equality are best achieved through balanced sets and representation, not through promoting women alone here and there.  When the sets become more inclusive across the board, the need for these directed efforts diminishes.

[Blondie-Wan]

41 minutes ago, x105Black said:

I like this.

I applaud LEGO for their choice to celebrate the women of NASA, as the accomplishments and representations of women are often overlooked, especially in science.  In reality, it's an important set with an important message.

However, I also feel that balance and equality are best achieved through balanced sets and representation, not through promoting women alone here and there.  When the sets become more inclusive across the board, the need for these directed efforts diminishes.

(emphasis added to point I wanted to make)

Agreed. But until that happens, there's a need for sets like this. At the moment, portrayals of girls and women are still heavily outnumbered by portrayals of boys and men in LEGO sets (and the broader culture) in general. Minifigures of real-life women are particularly rare, much more so than ones of real-life men.

15 hours ago, Artanis I said:

After all the hoo-ha about the "female minifigure set" I bought the Research Institute on the merits of the final TLG product, so if this one is shaped into something of quality and is appropriate I will consider it on those merits too.

The project is about a "message" (is the message intended to be divisive? Probably not.) It certainly isn't much about the Lego build. (That message is ultimately supposed to be something like "women are people too", nothing wrong with that message, but has it been presented well? Is that an appropriate thing for TLG to jump on board with, since they disallow politics, religion & social issues?) Put forward a set where the minifigs or people represented aren't all the same gender or nationality or colour (but a fair mix) and that is where you can be sure that your message more clearly says "women are people too". What this project says to me is "women aren't as good as men so we need to give them a special medal any time they reach a level that many men do", and is therefore either condescending, and/or alienates the men from NASA & the people (women & men) from other space programmes who didn't receive as much fanfare for their equivalent (or higher) achievements. The reason it says to me "aren't as good" rather than the more intended "aren't as involved/represented" is because this is supposedly celebrating the achievements of those people, not their involvement/representation.

It selectively includes particular real-life people, while also selectively ignoring particular real-life people. I said once before, selective celebration promotes division, by alienating others if nothing else. It seems that most of the objection to this set is either its (apparent or true) lack of build quality (ie the project is only successful due to the message attached to it and that's not what Lego is about), or that there's something wrong with the message or it's portrayal. No one here is "rejecting women's accomplishments", and that comment is bullying. Just because someone sees something different from what you do when they look at something doesn't make them wrong, surely you know that.

If you want balance, promote balance. "Anybody can science!" would be a better message to be sending (it even has that modern noun-as-verb thing going for it). You don't have to fit some kind of stereotype. Here are some generic minifigs of all shapes & sizes sciencing.

That sounds good, but does ignore the way the deck is stacked against women. There's a lot of deeply ingrained, systemic sexism that works against the approach you describe working to fully correct everything. There's still plenty of grounds for sets like this, given the massive number of sets going the other way (with mostly or exclusively men).

[VaderFan2187]

Well, which would be better: 100% of sets had both men and women in them, or 50% of sets had all men and 50% had all women?

Making all-men and all-women sets will not unite men and women, it will only further divide them.

[Lyichir]

4 hours ago, VaderFan2187 said:

Well, which would be better: 100% of sets had both men and women in them, or 50% of sets had all men and 50% had all women?

Making all-men and all-women sets will not unite men and women, it will only further divide them.

That's true. It's also a strawman argument, because in reality there are many sets that feature all men, many that feature a blend of men and women (a definite improvement over the past), but hardly any (at least, outside of Friends and Elves) that feature all women. It's decidedly imbalanced in favor of men, despite all the progress that has been made in recent years.

And that doesn't mean that the first and third categories should be eliminated entirely. In fact, they literally can't, considering how many sets only include a single fig. What SHOULD be done is providing a wide range of options, from sets containing only men to sets containing only women to every sort of ratio in between. After all, if you pick a random selection of five or so people in real life, there's still going to be a small but significant chance of all or most being one gender. There's no reason Lego sets need to be any different. Of course, the selection of figs in a set like this is not selected randomly, but that's a necessity if you want to correct an existing imbalance and only have a standalone set to work with.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Lyichir

[Robert8]

Jeep Wrangler Rubicon by ck80, achieved the 10000 supporters today!

 

[LucyCol]

Just come across this set Its such a novel idea and is one of the reason I like the Lego Ideas format, as it allows set like this which wouldn't normally even be considered as a desesign by TLG

[Faefrost]

On 3/9/2017 at 3:19 PM, VaderFan2187 said:

But I heard someone say that they left one of the most famous women out… don't exactly remember who, but it seemed many others agreed. If you're going to honor them don't leave them out.

Well you could consider it anti-communist as well…

 

On 3/9/2017 at 4:32 PM, Blondie-Wan said:

The idea is to have representation. LEGO cannot produce a set with every single woman who has ever worked for NASA; they are not going to produce a set - any set, in any theme - with several thousand minifigures.

 

There have been three "Women of NASA" to actually command vessels in space. Among them is Eileen Collins, NASA's first female pilot. First female Shuttle Commander (flew three missions, twice as the boss), one of their best ever pilots with three of the most perfect landings NASA has ever recorded, and was the Commander to bring the program back after Columbia. 

Of those three actual Spacecraft and mission Commanders mysteriously none or represented here. They would appear to be the wrong color. Publicly hold the wrong politics, and publicly profess a Christian faith to be included in such a project. Sorry the "they can't include everyone" argument doesn't pass the smell test in this case. 

[VaderFan2187]

@Faefrost thanks for sharing! That's really interesting.

[jonwil]

You have to remember that we have not seen the final product from TLG for "Women of NASA" yet. Until we do or TLG reveals details, I dont think there is any way to know what women will actually be included...

 

[Blondie-Wan]

5 hours ago, Faefrost said:

 

There have been three "Women of NASA" to actually command vessels in space. Among them is Eileen Collins, NASA's first female pilot. First female Shuttle Commander (flew three missions, twice as the boss), one of their best ever pilots with three of the most perfect landings NASA has ever recorded, and was the Commander to bring the program back after Columbia. 

Of those three actual Spacecraft and mission Commanders mysteriously none or represented here. They would appear to be the wrong color. Publicly hold the wrong politics, and publicly profess a Christian faith to be included in such a project. Sorry the "they can't include everyone" argument doesn't pass the smell test in this case. 

There's more than one color here, and the women chosen are still deserving. Five minifigures is already pushing it for a non-licensed Ideas set, as indicated by TLG's guidelines, so it's entirely reasonable that the creator set the number at that many, as more might have hurt the project's chances in review. And the figures she chose fill a variety of roles, most of them not astronauts. Yes, Eileen Collins would absolutely have been another excellent choice, but more deserving than the others here? Which one(s) do you deem less worthy, and why?

And as has repeatedly been noted, we don't even know for sure yet that Collins won't be in the final set. Sure, I assume the roster will remain the same, but that's not even definite yet.

[Faefrost]

19 hours ago, Blondie-Wan said:

There's more than one color here, and the women chosen are still deserving. Five minifigures is already pushing it for a non-licensed Ideas set, as indicated by TLG's guidelines, so it's entirely reasonable that the creator set the number at that many, as more might have hurt the project's chances in review. And the figures she chose fill a variety of roles, most of them not astronauts. Yes, Eileen Collins would absolutely have been another excellent choice, but more deserving than the others here? Which one(s) do you deem less worthy, and why?

And as has repeatedly been noted, we don't even know for sure yet that Collins won't be in the final set. Sure, I assume the roster will remain the same, but that's not even definite yet.

Four of the women proposed for the set each had important and unique personal contributions that moved NASA and the history of manned space flight forward in distinct ways. The had clear cut and unquestioned individual contributions. The fifth was a passenger, and otherwise unremarkable for purposes of this list save for accident of birth. When you see it it will be obvious. For contrast when playing the "First XXXX Woman in space" game. This is who they didn't play that game with; 

Judith Resnick, two Shuttle Missions. First American Jew in space. Second woman in space. Died aboard Challenger. 

Shannon Lucid, flew 5 shuttle missions and Mir. First Chinese born American in space. Long held American records for time in space.

Roberta Bondar, one shuttle mission. First Canadian woman in space.

Ellen Ochoa, 4 Shuttle Missions. Long time lead CAPCOM including for Columbia. Current Director of JOHNSON Space Center. First Hispanic Woman in Space. 

Chiaki Mukai, 2 shuttle flights. First Japanese woman in space.

Helena Kondakova, 1 Shuttle 1 Soyuz flight. First Russian Woman to "fly American" if you will. 

Kalpana Chawla, 2 shuttle flights, First Indian Woman in space. Died aboard Columbia. 

Julie Payette, 2 shuttle missions. First French Canadian

Peggy Whitson, 2 shuttle flights, 2 Soyuz flights. Oldest woman in space. Currently record holder for woman with most time in space. Most EVA's. First female ISS Commander. And is still up there extending the records every day. 

Sunita Williams, 1 shuttle mission, 1 Soyuz missions, ISS missions. Holds record for EVA time. Second Indian American woman. Currently one of the lead Astronauts with Space X likely to command one of the first private manned space flights. 

A rather impressive list of accomplishments is it not? And yet the "women of NASA" project includes one who's actual NASA resume is so brief and so shallow that "appeared on episode of Star Trek" is about its high point. Yeah, one of these things is not like the others...

 

 

[Blondie-Wan]

1 hour ago, Faefrost said:

Four of the women proposed for the set each had important and unique personal contributions that moved NASA and the history of manned space flight forward in distinct ways. The had clear cut and unquestioned individual contributions. The fifth was a passenger, and otherwise unremarkable for purposes of this list save for accident of birth. When you see it it will be obvious. For contrast when playing the "First XXXX Woman in space" game. This is who they didn't play that game with; 

Judith Resnick, two Shuttle Missions. First American Jew in space. Second woman in space. Died aboard Challenger. 

Shannon Lucid, flew 5 shuttle missions and Mir. First Chinese born American in space. Long held American records for time in space.

Roberta Bondar, one shuttle mission. First Canadian woman in space.

Ellen Ochoa, 4 Shuttle Missions. Long time lead CAPCOM including for Columbia. Current Director of JOHNSON Space Center. First Hispanic Woman in Space. 

Chiaki Mukai, 2 shuttle flights. First Japanese woman in space.

Helena Kondakova, 1 Shuttle 1 Soyuz flight. First Russian Woman to "fly American" if you will. 

Kalpana Chawla, 2 shuttle flights, First Indian Woman in space. Died aboard Columbia. 

Julie Payette, 2 shuttle missions. First French Canadian

Peggy Whitson, 2 shuttle flights, 2 Soyuz flights. Oldest woman in space. Currently record holder for woman with most time in space. Most EVA's. First female ISS Commander. And is still up there extending the records every day. 

Sunita Williams, 1 shuttle mission, 1 Soyuz missions, ISS missions. Holds record for EVA time. Second Indian American woman. Currently one of the lead Astronauts with Space X likely to command one of the first private manned space flights. 

A rather impressive list of accomplishments is it not? And yet the "women of NASA" project includes one who's actual NASA resume is so brief and so shallow that "appeared on episode of Star Trek" is about its high point. Yeah, one of these things is not like the others...

 

 

Well, I will grant you present a reasonable argument for including one of those others in Mae Jemison's place; all those women would be worthy inclusions. That said, that doesn't invalidate the accomplishments of Jemison, who was no mere "passenger" but a mission specialist and an M.D. She's an extremely accomplished individual in her own right, and the "accident of birth" to which you allude does matter, however much one might not want it to. Representation is a pretty big reason for this whole set's existence, and Jemison's presence in it adds to that value - possibly not for you, but surely for the thousands of people who want the set and actually intend to buy it (not to mention boosting its value from a LEGO parts perspective, more so than most of the others would).

(And again, we don't know for sure yet which women will actually make it into the final set. It's even possible Eileen Collins will be there.)

If you really think there should be a different selection, you can always suggest it to the project creator; she should be easy enough to reach.

[koalayummies]

"Arrgh! An all female what?!?! They better not! Rabble rabble rabble!!!" :bulldozer:

[jonwil]

It would be good if Women of NASA includes a minifig in one of those orange space suits...

 

[goalieboy82]

On 3/14/2017 at 11:50 PM, koalayummies said:

"Arrgh! An all female what?!?! They better not! Rabble rabble rabble!!!" :bulldozer:

very good.  

the men minifigs are saying:

i regret nothing

Edited March 16, 2017 by goalieboy82

[StarWars8Spoiler]

I know this will anger a lot of you, but I personally hope the Saturn V gets delayed for a few years so that its release coincides with the 50th anniversary (2019) of the Apollo 11 mission. It would have a much greater value to me and probably lots of other potential consumers.

[Blondie-Wan]

I don't see them doing that. It's already been announced as coming this summer. It would also be a disservice to the project creator, who surely doesn't want to have to wait a couple extra years for the set.

If they were willing to delay a set for two years to hit a nice round "X decades" anniversary, they might have chosen first to do it with the Back to the Future DeLorean Time Machine, which was released in 2013, two years before the original movie's 30th anniversary, but they didn't.