icm

I meant frivolous, functionless, but also lacking competition. Many of the Guinness records are made up just to have a Guiness record. For instance, there was a Lego YouTuber who asked Guinness if they would certify him for "fastest time building the Lego Colosseum." They agreed, and he filmed himself building the set, and then he had his very own Guinness-certified world record. Now, the competitive base for that was not exactly N=1, as there are other people in the world who have built the Colosseum set, but really for all practical purposes it was N=1. Nobody else was chasing that hyper-specific competitive niche. Edit - So, @kraai, can you tell us more about how you powered and controlled that extra-long train?

Just like 90% of the records in the Guiness Book of World Records! The vast majority of those are pointless stunts. Let these folks have their fun. They're obviously not being super serious about their "record."

I'd say there's a valid meaning in length of wheels, or number of cars. The number of cars (number of wheels) is directly related to the ability to safely steer, accelerate, and brake, especially when you're not running on rails. It may be a silly post, but it's a fun stunt. No need to pooh-pooh this get-together.

But note, none of these are the windscreen + sunroof combination you're looking for. Now let's take a look at how Mike Psiaki did it, which is completely differently than how anyone else has done it. Problem: There is no existing transparent plate or flag that is large enough to cover the "sunroof" area on its own. The usual solution: Use the existing UCS X-wing windscreen. Problem with that solution: The UCS X-wing windscreen has far too shallow of a slope to recreate the lines of the Galaxy Explorer or to easily accomodate multiple minifigures underneath. Solution: Mount the UCS X-wing windscreen at an elevated angle so that now it has the proper slope, with enough headroom underneath to accomodate a large crew, while still covering a large area on top. Also, mount another UCS X-wing windscreen at the opposite angle - and, hey presto, now it's nearly flat on top, and can cover the entire sunroof area with a single, transparent, part. It's an astonishingly elegant and simple solution that kills two birds with one stone, and is utterly and completely unique in Galaxy Explorer builds. I hadn't seen anything like it when the 10497 debuted. Also, note the thick, flat wing with attached leading edges. When I heard rumors about the Galaxy Explorer remake, I wondered how they would do the wings. Would they use wedge plates to build up a thin wing, like about half of the MOCs out there? Would they use slope bricks to build up a single-brick-thick wing, like the other half? Would they use stud inverters to have a sandwich wing with bottom greebles, like a few MOCs? No - Mike Psiaki did something completely different. Nobody else had done a five-plate thick studs-up wing with attached leading edges. Again, it's astonishingly innovative. After the 10283 Space Shuttle Discovery was released in 2021, I'd contemplated adapting its five-plate-thick wing with attached leading edges into a new Galaxy Explorer, but I never took the time to work that out. So I was tickled pink when the 10497 was released and Mike Psiaki had done that for me! The greebling is minimal and understated compared to most Galaxy Explorer designs, but I like it that way. The wing engines have a clean, sleek look that's unlike any other Galaxy Explorer engines. Nobody else had done the retroactively-obvious Classic Space move of having the wing engines detach for use as space scooters. Nobody else had done those nice brick-built RCS nozzles or that clever brick-built arrow on the back. The landing pads on the 10497 are so much larger and more robust than on most fan builds. And nobody else had done that clever two-stage ramp either. Again, I should get back to work and stop writing my love letter to the 10497. My point is just that the double-decker cabin with sunroof, of which you complain so much for the 10497, is actually nowhere near as simple as you think it is, and the 10497 has, in my view, the simplest and most elegant solution to the exact requirements you want: a nice big flat sunroof area, and a nice big flat front windscreen with just the right slope. I can accept the lack of a distinct rear upper-deck windscreen as a fair trade for that astonishingly elegant solution to the sunroof problem. Now that I've said my piece, how would you do the sunroof? Pictures and Studio mockups, please. Edit, from what you've written in your other posts I get the impression that your ideal Galaxy Explorer is probably close to this one by Guido Martin Brandis / The Brick Artisan: PS - Since you claim to want a weird and quirky look to the Galaxy Explorer, I do think the 10497 qualifies. The way the windscreens are handled is quite unconventional, and to my eyes pretty weird and quirky. But the weirdest and quirkiest Galaxy Explorer of all was also released in 2022. I would have been satisfied if it was the only non-licensed Spaceship released in 2022, even though I like the 10497 so much more. Is this what you're after? I think it's a pretty great Spaceship too!

@Merlo - Okay, so your main objection to 10497 is how the windscreen, sunroof, and rear windscreen were handled. How would you do it better? Don't just tell me, show me. Mock up your design in Studio and let's see how you would do it. It's not as easy as it looks to recreate the vintage sunroof. Thanks to the windscreen designed for the Batmobile in The Lego Batman Movie, we have a drop-in replacement for the main, front windscreen in trans-yellow. Thanks to the new 3x6 wedge slope in trans-yellow from The Lego Movie 2, we have a drop-in replacement for the secondary, rear windscreen. We can use 1x4x3 panels in trans-yellow as nearly drop-in replacements for the side windows, and certainly a retail set could use 1x2x2 panels or 1x4x2 panels in trans-yellow as a perfect drop-in replacement. But the sunroof isn't so easy. In 928 it's a transparent 4x10 plate. Lego doesn't make transparent plates larger than 1x2 anymore, and they don't make transparent tiles larger than 1x4. The largest window glass panel is for a 1x6x6 frame, and the largest flag pieces are 4x6 and 3x6. None of those are drop-in replacements for the sunroof. You're going to have to use more imagination to figure that out. So let's see what other MOC builders have done, before the 10497. You can simply have an opaque blue roof, like I did, but that's not satisfactory. You won't settle for anything less than a flat transparent sunroof. You can build up a trans-yellow sunroof from smaller trans-yellow 1x2 tiles or trans-yellow 1x1 round tiles on top, and trans-yellow 2x2 boat studs on bottom, but that's not satisfactory either. It's fragile, complicated, and you can't see through it very well. (The 918 by Constender illustrates the technique.) You can build up a sunroof from transparent 1x4 bricks, and if you're designing a retail set you can transparent 1x2x5 bricks, but that's a clumsy solution that reduces minifig headroom and doesn't blend in very well with either the front or back windscreen: You can use a segmented roof, like The Brick Artisan / Guido Martin Branduis, or this concept from Elephant-Knight: If the double-decker aspect is critically important to you, you can use two bubble cockpits in a retail set, but those parts don't actually exist in trans-yellow for a MOC build: Continued from previous post: The easiest way to get a transparent ceiling for the entire cockpit is to use the trans-yellow UCS X-wing windscreen. But then you have to abandon the idea of the separate windscreen and sunroof, and the much shallower slope of the UCS X-wing windscreen severely reduces headroom and usable volume in the cockpit. Many MOCs have done this: So, those are the sunroof or double-decker solutions that MOC builders have used in the past before 10497 was released. As MOC builders, all these people have been free to use every bit of creativity and imagination they possibly can, not limited by the requirements of retail sets.

They can both be true to the Classic Space formula in different ways. That's what we're trying to say. There is no "one true way" to make a modern Classic Space build. There is no "one true" Classic Space. Your opinions on Classic Space are just as valid as anybody's. The problem is when you seem to think that your version of CS is the one true way. It's like insisting that thin-crust New York-style pepperoni pizza is the one and only, one true pizza and nothing else can properly be called pizza, and then saying all the other pizza chefs who make different styles of pizza don't know how to cook.

This is a great little alt build. Are these posted on your Flickr account too? I used to remember your Flickr handle but I don't anymore.

OMG, why didn't I see this before? This is amazing! I love the reverse tilt of the windscreen and the single engine turbine in front. The leading edge of the wings is very smartly done too.

@Merlo: The 10497 Galaxy Explorer is plenty playful. It's stuffed with play features: three-point retractable landing gear, four seats in the cockpit, two beds in the back, two storage compartments, a sliding door on the inside, reaction control thrusters that spin around, two big windscreens that can be opened and closed, a big cargo bay in the back that opens wide on both sides, a chunky little rover to carry in the cargo bay, an innovative two-stage ramp that not only reaches the ground but launches the rover down the ramp at some speed, and two detachable space-motorcycles/speeder-bikes with fun little control levers. It also has a fun little robot to serve the astronauts coffee. The 10497 Galaxy Explorer is plenty rebuildable. It has official instructions for B and C models to rebuild it into modern remakes of the 924 Space Transport and 918 One-Man Spaceship. I would argue it is the Classic Space 3-in-1 Creator set that @danth has called for. Besides those two official alt builds (which are two more alt builds than most sets get), you can find alt builds on Rebrickable that turn it into a remake of the Classic Space Cosmic Cruiser, a great big mining mech, a Classic Space version of the U-wing from Star Wars, a Classic Space version of the Republic Gunship from Star Wars, a geoscience survey rover, a remake of the Classic Space Alien Moon Stalker, and many other spaceships. With two or three copies, you can make a Classic Space version of the Nebulon-B frigate from Star Wars, a remake of the Classic Space Galaxy Commander, a remake of the Classic Space Cosmic Fleet Voyager, and several other large spaceships. If you search Reddit, Flickr, or Instagram, you can find a number of other alt builds for the 10497. Emphasis added. You imagined the old Galaxy Explorer set as representing a scaled-down version of a much larger vessel, the way the playscale Millennium Falcon is a scaled-down version of a much larger vessel. That's fine, and you're not alone in imagining that. There are many fan builds on Flickr of much larger vessels built as Galaxy Explorers. Where you annoy me, and others, is your seeming insistence that the way you imagine the Galaxy Explorer is the correct way, or the only way, or that Lego (the company) or Mike Psiaki (the set designer) lacked imagination in not conforming to your imagination of the way a Galaxy Explorer remake should be. Personally, I never imagined it that way. I've seen enormous upscaled Galaxy Explorer fan builds and I appreciate the skill and imagination of the fan builders, but I've never wanted them as retail sets, nor imagined that that's the way the real ship must be. Ask yourself: would you really want an $800 UCS supersize Galaxy Explorer retail set, along the lines of the UCS Millennium Falcon or UCS Razor Crest? Do you really think that would sell? How accessible would that be? In the modern Lego lineup, $100 for the 10497 is a very accessible midrange price point. It's true that the 10497, with its lack of ornate exterior greebling, can look somewhat plain. But that's an intentional stylistic choice. Not everything has to be covered in greebling to look good - to some eyes, heavy greebling doesn't look good. As for the design and build of the 10497, it's actually startlingly innovative when you compare it to all previous Galaxy Explorer MOCs on the internet. I've made it a personal project since about 2017 to pay close attention to all the Galaxy Explorer MOCs I can find on the web and try to recreate most of them in Studio. My jaw dropped when I saw the first pictures of the 10497 because it had so many design features and building techniques I'd never seen before in any Galaxy Explorer MOC, and its overall design language was completely fresh compared to all other Galaxy Explorers I'd ever seen - not an easy feat in a crowded building space. Just because it looks plain doesn't mean it lacks imagination. There's so much imagination in that build - and also in the design brief. It requires a lot more imagination to scale up the old ship 1.5 times with modern parts and stuff it full of play features the original didn't have, than to simply scale it up twice with old parts (as several fan builders have done) or to simply upgrade the original ship with modern parts at close to the original scale, without adding many play features (as most fan builders have done, including myself). As for whether the 10497 reflects the design language or visual aesthetic of Classic Space, you and @Aanchir both have good points, but I agree with Aanchir more. The subtlety, I think, is that there's a shift in the design language of the 1978-1980 Classic Space versus the later 1981-1987 sets. The first sets, including the Galaxy Explorer, have a much simpler aesthetic than the later sets, and I think that the 10497 captures that simpler, highly angular, look quite well. The later Classic Space sets had much more complex shapes and many more lights, antennas, trusses, nozzles, fins, and other specialty elements breaking up their outer mold lines. The later windows and windscreens with multiple facets can much more plausibly be taken as approximating curves than the simple sloped windscreens of the 1978-1980 sets. All those specialty elements also can be much more plausibly taken as representing greeble areas in a modern remake than the flat, unadorned wings of the Galaxy Explorer and its smaller siblings. In that regard, the Galaxy Dropship on Ideas does represent the look of later Classic Space quite a bit better than the 10497. Similarly, the 70816 Benny Spaceship is an attempt (successful in the eyes of many people, unsuccessful in your eyes) to blend the bells, whistles, and widgets of later Classic Space with the wedge planform and the color scheme of the 1978-1980 sets. If your objection to the 10497 is that it "looks very contemporary" and is "very much made to appeal to our present day sensibilities," what would you do differently? Every single Galaxy Explorer MOC on the web looks very contemporary and is very much made to appeal to our present day sensibilities, except ones that are made as makeshift attempts to approximate the size and shape of the original set on the smallest budget possible, and those generally look far too primitive to sell as retail sets in the 2020s. Would you resurrect the long-retired 3/7 wedge plates? Would you resurrect the long-retired 2x3x2 tail fins with four studs on top? This is my attempt to remake the Galaxy Explorer as close to the original set as possible, but using modern wedge plates and modern windscreens. Would you do this? - - - As long as I'm on my soapbox, I'll note that however much I like the 10497 as released, I would also have very much liked to get a smaller spaceship along with a moonbase and landing pad, if that could be made to fit into a single $160 or $170 set like the largest sets in the City exploration lines. Aka, something like this (see left half, ie the old spaceship on the landing pad made from City road plates, and the Wonder Woman satellite dish): or this (entirely my own design): I was being rude when I called the Galaxy Dropship one of the ugliest Classic Space MOCs ever designed, and I apologize for that. Even though I think it is ugly, I don't have any objection to curved windscreens and curved slopes in modern Classic Space remakes. I agree that the curved design language can work for a Classic Space aesthetic. There are many Classic Space MOCs that use modern curves quite successfully. For instance, remakes of the Cosmic Fleet Voyager in your last post are usually quite curvy, including my own version (the picture is outdated, I've removed the stickers from the windscreen and made some other changes). But I don't think a curvy style works very well with the Galaxy Explorer, especially not at a small scale. I also like this curvy Galaxy Explorer-style ship a lot, and it's small enough that I can imagine it being released as a retail set. But I wouldn't want a retail set version of this model to be named "Galaxy Explorer." Ok - sorry for the extra-long post. I'll get off my soapbox now and stop blowing my own horn. I sincerely don't mean to invalidate your perspective on the stylistic choices of the 10497, etc. We're all allowed our own different tastes and preferences and certainly Eurobricks should always be a safe space to criticize Lego sets and say exactly what we don't like about them and why! It's just that we have such different visions of Classic Space that I too have a lot to say about this one set, but I hesitated to rejoin the conversation because I've pretty much already said everything I have to say about it several times over. (To whoever has read all this stuff from me before, sorry for the repetition.) Have a nice day! I should get back to work. :) This. So much this. 😁

I'm sorry, I was unnecessarily rude. I'll just note that the past few pages on this thread have been pretty hostile towards the design and builder of the 10497, in great detail, and I have no intention of tearing that MOC apart in the same way. I was simply and briefly stating my contrary opinion without going into further detail. Thank you for your post, I agree with everything you said. I wanted to write something similar, but I didn't have time.

I'd say this moc looks pretty good. The presentation doesn't pop nearly as much as if it was built in real bricks and photographed with a real camera, but that's alright. I'd enjoy seeing something like this at a convention.

Taste, taste, it's all a matter of taste. To my eyes the 10497 is way up there with the best Classic Space MOCs ever designed, and it was a day one pre-order. I bought four copies. To my eyes, that Galaxy Dropship is one of the ugliest Classic Space MOCs ever designed, and I most likely wouldn't buy it at all. Classic Space is so many different things to so many different people. Now that we've had what is the perfect Classic Space set for people whose tastes align with mine, maybe in a few years we can get the perfect Classic Space set for people whose tastes align with yours, and then we can both be satisfied :)

Emphasis added in italics - circular reasoning, but understandable. Emphasis added in bold - you would exclude Alien Conquest and Galaxy Squad, then.

I agree that the original Galaxy Explorer is not that interesting to start with, and it has some ugly angles like anything else. That said, I think there are four reasons why it's the most popular ship for fan remakes and set references, including its remake as 10497. 1 - As the very first big Spaceship, it's easy to pick it as a unique set to highlight when talking about Lego history. If you're going to talk about the history of Space, why highlight the third, or fourth, or eighth big Spaceship as the best of all time? Far easier to pick the first. 2 - As the very first big Spaceship, it's the one that was most fondly remembered by the first generation of AFOLs to build web forums and share their MOCs online, in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That generation of AFOLs was pretty vocal about missing Classic Space and building Classic Space-inspired spaceships, including Galaxy Explorers. So as later KFOLs, TFOLs, and AFOLs came online, they learned about that Classic Space and Galaxy Explorer nostalgia, and they built their own Galaxy Explorers to show off their building skills in comparison with the older folks. In that respect it's a meme cycle: Why do AFOLs care so much about the Galaxy Explorer? Because everybody else does. 3 - The shape and functions of the Galaxy Explorer are very simple, limited by the available parts in 1979. It's basically just a big flat wedge-shaped wing with a box-shaped cabin, a windscreen, and a ramp at the back. That makes it very easy to remake in whatever building style you like, and it's a very appealing blank slate to add whatever play features, moving parts, furnishings, greebles, or design flourishes you like - or make variations of it in a wide variety of color schemes. You can take great liberties with the design of the Galaxy Explorer, and it's still recognizable as a Galaxy Explorer. Sort of like pizza - you can do almost anything with pizza, and it's still recognizable as pizza. Whereas with the later ships, beginning with the very next medium-sized ship (the Starfleet Voyager) and the very next large ship (the Galaxy Commander), the shape is far more complex and far more constrained by the play features. It's so much harder to remake the Galaxy Commander, or the Deep Freeze Defender, because those have to be a lot more than just a box with wings, or wings with a box. Why do AFOLs remake the Galaxy Explorer so much? Because it's so easy to make it your own. 4 - The motif of the wedge-shaped spaceship is ubiquitous in sci-fi visual design. Lots of people find it appealing and simple. The Galaxy Explorer is the most uniquely Lego take on the wedge-shaped spaceship, so it sort of carries the flag for the idea of a "Lego spaceship."

You've got me there! I concede that as an adult I'm much more open-minded about considering any old sci-fi swooshy Space-like than I was as a kid. Yeah, I do find most of the fantasy action themes with swords and swooshies very much the same. They're not really my cup of tea. Yep, fingers crossed Ninjago gets to go to Space sometime. In general, though, I'd say the thing that Ninjago gives us that Space can't is more flexibility. Space themes are pretty well constrained to take place in Space (except if you count James Cameron's Avatar as a licensed Space theme, which it totally could be if they made sets of the shuttle or the starship, or if you count Rock Raiders as a Space theme), whereas Ninjago can take place any old where. Except Space, apparently.

For me, Castle was always about European-style knights defending a fortress, but obviously YMMV.

That's what I've tried to say several times. Back in the day, Space was the only theme for sci-fi swooshies, but that started to change in 1995 with Aquazone. Sci-fi swooshies are everywhere now, so it's hard for Space to find a distinct niche in the product line.

Sounds like the Mars Missions set from City is exactly what you're after. Go get that set and have a lot of fun with it, then come back and enjoy the Galaxy Explorer for what it is, not what it isn't. Personally I think it's a great parts pack, and I've never liked the blinged-out look of the Xenon X-craft. Give me clean lines and basic parts I can build with, not a lot of specialty parts I can't build with, any day.

Google the Apollo-era Lunar Flying Unit LFU concept. That, or any of the "worker bee" concepts for Space Station maintenance, could conceivably be described as a "space hoverbike" while still reasonably fitting in City. We'll see how the polybag turns out. Maybe we'll get a 74-Z in Police colors!

Serious question here: ignoring the lack of minifigs in spacesuits with space helmets, what about the design of the main model and side builds (big spider base, robot spider, speederbike) of this: is any less of "anything remotely to do with space" than the design of the main model and side builds (big spider base, speederbike) of this: or this (big spider base, speederbikes)?

Yeah, I agree. I want to like the Spacebus, but it's definitely more Space Shuttle than Spaceship, and it requires a lot of color changes in the center section to be a satisfactory Space Shuttle. Having only two minifigs (the dreamlings don't count) and such a huge sticker for the canopy are pretty big marks against it too.

To avoid beating a dead horse too much, I've copied my post from 7/28/23 (in another thread) into the spoiler tag below. TLDR, between zany Marvel swooshies and zany Ninjago/Monkie Kid/Dreamzzz swooshies there's not much room for zany Space swooshies to stand out on shelves, within the product niche of "Space that is clearly not Star Wars or NASA". Edit, don't forget this - a very Spacey insectoid mobile base from 2021! Once again, a Space set in all but name (and a stubborn lack of helmets and airtanks).

Careful what you complain about. Too much complaining about clone battle packs, and all you'll get are Gungans, Geonosians, and Ewoks. Actually, that sounds pretty cool, if spread over a year or two.

Most likely the logo and the spacesuits will be different.

I buy Lego, Cobi, Bluebrixx Star Trek, and Sluban military aircraft.