NASA’s Ambitious Plan to Land Gemini Spacecraft on a Runway

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

The Unflown Wing

Project Gemini holds a unique place in the history of space exploration. It is often called the “bridge to the moon,” a series of ten crewed missions flown in a compressed twenty-month period that methodically built the capabilities America would need to achieve its lunar ambitions. Gemini astronauts mastered long-duration flight, perfected the intricate dance of orbital rendezvous and docking, and took the first tentative steps outside their spacecraft in the vacuum of space. The program was a crucible of innovation, a forward-looking enterprise that developed the technologies and operational experience essential for the Apollo missions that would follow.

Yet, for all its pioneering spirit, Gemini was slated to end its missions with a recovery method that was a holdover from the past. Like the Mercury capsules before them, the Gemini spacecraft were designed to splash down in the ocean, relying on parachutes to slow their descent before being plucked from the water by a massive naval task force. This method was proven, but it was also costly, cumbersome, and fraught with risk. It stood in stark contrast to the program’s otherwise futuristic objectives.

This contradiction was not lost on the engineers and managers at NASA. From its very inception, a core goal of the Gemini program was to break free from the logistical and safety constraints of ocean recovery. The vision was for a controlled, pilot-guided landing on solid ground. The solution they chose was as elegant as it was ambitious: a massive, inflatable, steerable wing that would deploy after reentry and turn the ballistic space capsule into a glider. Known as the paraglider, it promised runway landings and a new era of spacecraft recovery. It was an idea that consumed years of effort and millions of dollars, pushing the boundaries of aeronautical engineering. It was also a dream that would never fly in space, a story of significant technical challenges, programmatic pressures, and an unexpected legacy that would change the world in ways its creators never imagined.

The Perils of the Sea: Lessons from Project Mercury

The iconic images of Project Mercury – America’s first human spaceflight program – are of astronauts being hoisted from the ocean into hovering helicopters, triumphant smiles visible through their helmet visors. These moments of success concealed an immense and costly logistical operation and a level of risk that gave NASA planners significant pause as they looked toward the future. The success of Mercury’s recovery was a triumph of brute-force logistics, not elegant engineering, and it established an unsustainable precedent for the more complex programs to come.

The sheer scale of the recovery effort for each Mercury mission was staggering. Because the capsules were unsteerable once their parachutes deployed, they could land anywhere within a large, elliptical target zone. To cover every contingency, from a launch pad abort to an off-course reentry, the U.S. Navy assembled a formidable fleet. For Alan Shepard’s brief, 15-minute suborbital flight, the main recovery force consisted of an aircraft carrier, eight destroyers, and a radar tracking ship, supported by Marine Air Group 26 helicopters and Lockheed P2V Neptune aircraft. This naval task force was stretched in an elongated pattern hundreds of miles down the Atlantic Missile Range. The cost of deploying and operating these assets for each mission was a significant contributor to Project Mercury’s total price tag, which amounted to $277 million in 1965, or over $2.7 billion when adjusted for inflation. It was a clear demonstration that while splashing down worked, it was an incredibly expensive way to bring an astronaut home.

Beyond the cost, the method was deceptively dangerous. The seemingly smooth recoveries of most missions belied the inherent perils of landing a spacecraft in the open ocean. Two of the six crewed Mercury flights served as stark reminders of this vulnerability. In July 1961, after his Liberty Bell 7 capsule splashed down, Gus Grissom found himself in a fight for his life. The capsule’s side hatch blew prematurely, and the spacecraft began taking on water. Grissom scrambled out, but his suit’s air-intake valve was open, and he too began to sink. He was rescued only after a harrowing struggle in the waves as the recovery helicopter, unable to lift the waterlogged capsule, was forced to abandon it to the ocean floor.

Less than a year later, Scott Carpenter’s Aurora 7 mission ended with a 250-mile landing overshoot, leaving him isolated in the Atlantic for nearly three hours before recovery forces could reach him. These incidents were not mere anomalies; they were demonstrations of the system’s fundamental weaknesses. The capsules could sink, the landing zones were imprecise, and astronauts were left vulnerable to the elements in a way that was unacceptable for a mature space program.

The lessons learned from Mercury created a powerful institutional drive for change within NASA. As engineers began designing the next-generation spacecraft, initially called Mercury Mark II and later renamed Gemini, a pilot-controlled land landing was not considered a “nice-to-have” feature; it was established as a primary program objective from the very beginning. The goal was to develop a recovery system that was safer, more precise, and far less dependent on the massive, costly deployment of naval forces. The agency needed to move beyond the logistical brute force of Mercury and engineer a smarter, more reliable way to return from orbit. The search for that solution would lead them to an unconventional idea that had been germinating for years, far from the mainstream of the aerospace industry.

A Vision of Flight: The Rogallo Wing

The technology that NASA would select to bring its Gemini astronauts down to a runway landing did not originate in the advanced research labs of an aerospace contractor. It began in the home of Francis Rogallo, an aeronautical engineer at NASA’s predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), and his wife, Gertrude. Starting in the mid-1940s, the Rogallos, both avid kite flyers, pursued a personal passion: the creation of a simple, inexpensive aircraft wing that was entirely flexible.

Working in their spare time, they experimented with fabric shapes in a homemade wind tunnel built into a doorway of their house. Their foundational idea was a departure from conventional aeronautics. Instead of forcing the wind to conform to a rigid, fixed wing, they believed a wing could be designed to conform to the flow of the wind itself. Before the end of 1948, they had developed a successful design they called the “Flexi-Kite.” When Rogallo presented his work to his superiors at NACA, the concept was dismissed. The agency’s engineers saw “no practical use” for such an invention and gave him permission to develop it on his own time. The Rogallos patented their “Flexible Kite” in 1951 and, to help finance their ongoing research, licensed the design as a toy.

The genius of the Rogallo wing lay in its elegant simplicity. It was not a wing until the wind made it one. On the ground, it was just a sheet of fabric attached to a simple frame. In the air the pressure of the airflow would inflate the fabric, causing it to billow into two partial conical surfaces. This shape naturally created camber, the gentle curve from the leading edge to the trailing edge that is essential for generating lift. The wing’s swept-back, delta shape also produced washout, a slight upward twist toward the wingtips. This feature provided aerodynamic stability without the need for a conventional tail, making the entire structure remarkably self-stabilizing in flight. The result was an airfoil that was lightweight, could be folded into a small package, and was inherently stable.

For years, the Rogallo wing remained largely in the realm of hobbyists. That changed in the late 1950s as NASA began to grapple with the challenges of spacecraft recovery. The agency’s search for a controllable, land-based landing system led them to re-examine the very idea their predecessor organization had dismissed. Suddenly, the “impractical” flexible wing, which could be stowed in a compact container and deployed like a parachute but glide like a wing, appeared to be an ideal solution. NASA renamed the concept the “Parawing” and, in May 1961, awarded contracts to three companies to study its application for spacecraft recovery. The idea developed outside the institutional mainstream, initially rejected, was now being embraced as the potential key to the future of crewed spaceflight.

Designing a Terrestrial Return: The Paraglider Landing System

The conceptual leap from a toy kite to a spacecraft recovery system was immense, and the engineering required to bridge that gap was formidable. The Paraglider Landing System, as it was formally known, was an ambitious attempt to integrate the principles of flexible-wing flight with a vehicle that was fundamentally non-aerodynamic. The Gemini capsule, an enlarged version of the conical Mercury spacecraft, was a blunt-body vehicle designed to withstand the brutal heat of reentry, not to fly gracefully through the atmosphere. The paraglider had the difficult task of taming this ballistic beast and turning it into a controllable glider.

The heart of the system was the wing itself. Designed by prime contractor North American Aviation, it was a massive inflatable delta wing with a span of nearly 33 feet and a length of over 42 feet. Its structure consisted of a series of inflatable tubes made of rubber and metal, which formed the leading edges and central keel. Stretched over this frame was a sail made of specialized, non-porous fabric. The entire assembly, along with its deployment mechanisms, weighed nearly 800 pounds more than a conventional parachute system – a significant weight penalty that would later become a point of contention. This entire apparatus had to be meticulously folded and packed into a cylindrical container in the rendezvous and recovery section at the nose of the Gemini spacecraft.

The deployment sequence was a complex and precisely timed ballet that had to occur flawlessly high above the Earth. After the capsule had blazed through the most intense phase of reentry and slowed to subsonic speeds, the process would begin at an altitude of around 50,000 feet. First, a drogue parachute would deploy, stabilizing the capsule and pulling the paraglider’s container away. As the wing was extracted, a nitrogen inflation system would fill its structural tubes, causing it to unfurl and assume its aerodynamic shape. The tension on the suspension lines would then pull the spacecraft from its heat-shield-first reentry attitude into an upright, forward-facing orientation, with the astronauts sitting as if in an aircraft cockpit, ready to begin their glide to a landing.

Control of this unconventional aircraft was to be placed directly in the hands of the pilot. The system did not provide the capsule with traditional flight controls like ailerons or a rudder. Instead, the astronaut would fly the vehicle by manipulating a system of five main cables connecting the capsule to the wing. By reeling these cables in or out, the pilot could change the wing’s angle of attack and its tilt relative to the capsule. This action would shift the center of gravity of the combined vehicle, which in turn would alter the direction and rate of its descent. It was an indirect and somewhat cumbersome method of control, essentially turning the multi-ton capsule into a pendulum hanging beneath the wing.

The final piece of the puzzle was the landing gear. To absorb the impact of a runway touchdown, the Gemini capsule was to be fitted with a unique tricycle landing gear consisting of a nose skid and two outrigger skids. These would deploy in the final moments of the descent, allowing the spacecraft to touch down at a projected speed of around 75 kilometers per hour. It was a complete, end-to-end vision for a terrestrial return, a marvel of conceptual ambition that sought to graft an entirely new mode of flight onto an existing spacecraft design. It was also a system where every single component, from the packed wing to the landing skids, presented a significant engineering challenge.

Trials in the Desert: The Unmanned Test Program

Before any astronaut could attempt to fly a Gemini capsule to a runway landing, the paraglider system had to be proven through a rigorous and extensive series of unmanned tests. Conducted over the dry lakebeds of California, this program used a series of uncrewed boilerplate and half-scale test vehicles (HSTV) dropped from helicopters and C-130 aircraft. From the outset, the tests were plagued by a cascade of failures that revealed just how difficult it would be to turn the paraglider concept into a reliable reality.

The problems began at the very first step: deployment. In numerous tests, the complex sequence of events required to unfurl the wing went awry. Drogue parachutes malfunctioned, the canisters meant to house the folded wing failed to separate cleanly, and the paraglider itself would deploy too late, failing to inflate in time to be effective. In other tests, the violent aerodynamic forces experienced during deployment would simply shred the wing’s fabric, causing the sail to disintegrate before it could even begin to fly. Even on the occasions when the wing did manage to deploy successfully, the test vehicles often failed to achieve a stable glide, instead tumbling through the air in an uncontrolled descent.

A critical and deeply ironic source of delays came from a component that was supposed to be a safety measure. Recognizing the high cost of the boilerplate test capsules, NASA required the contractor, North American Aviation, to first design and qualify an emergency backup parachute system for the test vehicles. This system was intended to save the capsule if the experimental paraglider failed. this backup parachute system – a relatively mature and understood technology – suffered its own series of repeated and catastrophic failures.

In multiple drops, both the main and backup emergency parachutes failed to deploy correctly. The result was the complete destruction of expensive test articles as they plummeted into the desert floor. These failures consumed months of valuable time and resources. The test program for the primary landing system was falling behind schedule because its own safety net was broken. This pattern of failure on a comparatively simple system was a significant red flag. It suggested that the challenges were not merely confined to the novel and difficult paraglider technology itself, but were indicative of deeper, systemic issues with quality control, procedures, and program execution at the contractor. If a simple parachute could not be made to work reliably, the odds of perfecting the vastly more complex paraglider seemed increasingly long.

Learning to Fly the Unflyable: The Paresev Program

While North American Aviation struggled with the complexities of the full-scale deployment system, a parallel effort was underway at NASA’s own Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Recognizing the need for pilots to gain hands-on experience with the unique flight characteristics of the Rogallo wing, a small team of engineers built their own test vehicle. Their instructions were to do it “quick and cheap.” The result was the Paraglider Research Vehicle, or Paresev.

The Paresev was a masterpiece of functional simplicity. It was essentially a welded steel-tube frame set on three wheels, with an open pilot’s seat and a control stick. Mounted atop a mast was a fabric Rogallo wing. The vehicle was unpowered and had no enclosed cockpit, earning it the nickname the “flying bathtub.” Its mission was straightforward: to teach pilots how to fly the wing. Over a two-year period, a team of NASA’s best test pilots, including future astronaut Neil Armstrong and veteran pilot Milt Thompson, conducted nearly 350 flights in the Paresev. They were towed into the air by ground vehicles or small aircraft before being released to glide back to the dry lakebed below.

These flights quickly revealed a fundamental and perhaps insurmountable flaw in the paraglider concept for spacecraft recovery: the control system. Because the pilot and vehicle hung on cables far below the wing, control inputs were indirect and sluggish. A pilot would move the control stick, but there was a significant time lag before the wing would respond. This made the vehicle difficult to maneuver with any precision.

This control lag was particularly dangerous during the most critical phase of flight: the landing. To land safely, the pilot had to execute a “flare” maneuver just before touchdown, pulling back on the controls to pitch the wing up, increase lift, and slow the rate of descent for a gentle landing. In the Paresev, with its slow-responding controls, timing this flare was a high-stakes guessing game. A flare executed too early would cause the vehicle to stall and drop, while a flare executed too late would result in a hard, high-speed impact with the ground.

The dangers of this control system were tragically demonstrated during the testing of the full-scale Tow Test Vehicles (TTVs), which were piloted mockups of the Gemini capsule designed to perfect landing techniques. In one incident, test pilot E.P. Hetzel’s vehicle entered an uncontrollable turn after being released from the tow plane, forcing him to bail out. In another, pilot Donald F. McCusker was seriously injured when he flared too late and the TTV slammed into the ground. These accidents underscored a harsh reality. While skilled test pilots could, under ideal conditions, fly the paraglider, the control system was not intuitive, responsive, or forgiving enough for the absolute reliability demanded of human spaceflight. The gap between what was possible in a research program and what was practical for an operational mission was proving to be perilously wide.

The Inevitable Decision: Cancellation of the Program

The fate of the Gemini paraglider program was sealed not by a single, dramatic failure, but by a slow erosion of confidence brought on by a confluence of technical, schedule, and budgetary pressures. It was a death by a thousand cuts, a gradual realization that the ambitious goal of runway landings was an engineering problem too complex to be solved within the rigid constraints of the race to the Moon.

The technical immaturity of the system was undeniable. The relentless series of failures in the unmanned drop tests – from torn sails to unstable glides – showed that the technology was nowhere near the level of reliability required for human spaceflight. The piloted Paresev and TTV flights, while providing invaluable data, had primarily served to highlight the fundamental difficulties of controlling the vehicle, particularly during the critical landing phase.

These technical woes were compounded by intense schedule pressure. Project Gemini was not an end in itself; it was a means to an end. Its primary purpose was to develop the skills and technologies needed for Apollo, and the national goal of a lunar landing by the end of the decade was a non-negotiable deadline. The paraglider program was falling hopelessly behind. Initially planned for the second Gemini mission, its operational debut was first pushed to the seventh flight, then to the tenth, and finally became an indefinite prospect. The relentless pace of the Apollo program left no room for a major subsystem that was still in the early stages of research and development.

As schedules slipped, costs mounted. The development program was expensive, with one contract to North American Aviation alone valued at $20 million. With a fixed budget for the overall Gemini program, the costly and delayed paraglider became an obvious target for cuts. The system’s significant weight penalty also worked against it. The nearly 800 pounds of mass allocated for the paraglider and its landing gear became a valuable commodity that Gemini program managers needed for other critical systems, such as life support for longer missions and scientific experiments. The paraglider was evolving from a primary objective into an unaffordable luxury.

The final decision came on February 20, 1964. NASA Associate Administrator George Mueller formally removed the paraglider from the operational plan for all Gemini missions. The project was downgraded to a research and development effort, to continue testing but with no prospect of being used to recover a crew. The dream of land landings was officially over for Gemini. All ten crewed missions would revert to the tried-and-true, if imperfect, method of parachute-assisted splashdowns. In the face of overwhelming programmatic pressure, NASA had made a pragmatic choice. It sacrificed the high-risk, high-reward promise of technological innovation for the certainty of an established solution that would keep the critical path to the Moon intact.

Legacy of a Grounded Dream

Though the Gemini paraglider never carried an astronaut back from orbit, the program’s legacy proved to be both significant and surprising. Its influence can be traced along two divergent paths: one that stayed within the rarified world of advanced aerospace research, and another that blossomed into a global recreational movement.

The ambition behind the paraglider program – the desire for a spacecraft that could return from orbit and land horizontally on a runway – did not die with its cancellation. This goal fueled parallel research into a different class of vehicles known as lifting bodies. These were wingless aircraft that generated aerodynamic lift from the shape of their fuselages. Programs like the M2-F1 and HL-10, which were being tested at Edwards Air Force Base during the same period as the paraglider, ultimately proved the concept of controlled, unpowered runway landings from high altitude. While the paraglider itself was a technological dead end for spacecraft recovery, the institutional goal it represented lived on through the lifting body programs, which provided critical data and operational experience that directly influenced the design of the Space Shuttle.

The paraglider’s most significant and unexpected legacy unfolded far from NASA’s research centers. The high-profile nature of the program, with its numerous publications and widely circulated photographs, had captured the imagination of amateur aviators and hobbyists around the world. They saw in the Rogallo wing not a complex spacecraft recovery system, but the key to simple, personal flight.

This grassroots interest was championed by the wing’s inventor, Francis Rogallo. After NASA officially abandoned his creation for Gemini, he and his family continued to experiment with it, building and flying their own gliders from the sand dunes near their home in North Carolina. In a decision that would prove transformative, the Rogallos chose not to enforce their patent on the flexible wing, effectively releasing the design into the public domain. This act of generosity removed the final barrier to innovation.

The result was an explosion of creativity. Working from pictures in magazines and using readily available materials like aluminum tubing and plastic sheeting, enthusiasts began building their own “Rogallo wings.” This growing movement gave birth to the modern sport of hang gliding in the early 1970s. The very characteristics that had made the Rogallo wing unsuitable for NASA’s high-stakes missions – its simplicity, low cost, and gentle, low-speed flight – made it the perfect platform for a recreational revolution. Francis Rogallo, the once-overlooked engineer, became a celebrated icon known as the “Father of Hang Gliding,” finally fulfilling his original dream of making flight accessible to everyone. The Gemini paraglider program is a powerful example of how a project deemed a “failure” in one context can become a catalyst for transformative success in another.

Summary

The Gemini paraglider program stands as one of the most ambitious and fascinating “what-ifs” of the Space Race. Born from the hard-won lessons of Project Mercury’s risky and resource-intensive ocean recoveries, it represented a bold leap of imagination: to give astronauts the ability to fly their space capsules back from orbit and land them on a runway. The chosen solution, Francis Rogallo’s innovative flexible wing, promised an elegant and controllable return to Earth.

The reality was a cascade of formidable challenges. The effort to integrate the inflatable wing with the blunt-body Gemini capsule pushed the limits of aeronautical engineering. A relentless series of failures in unmanned drop tests, coupled with the discovery of treacherous control characteristics during piloted flights, revealed the system’s technical immaturity. Faced with the unyielding schedule of the Apollo program and mounting budget and weight constraints, NASA made the pragmatic decision to cancel the paraglider for operational use, reverting all Gemini missions to the proven splashdown method.

Yet, the story of the unflown wing did not end there. The program’s high-profile research served as an unintended catalyst, inspiring a global grassroots movement in recreational aviation. The very simplicity and low-speed stability that made the Rogallo wing a poor fit for the unforgiving demands of spacecraft recovery made it the ideal platform for the new sport of hang gliding. The Gemini paraglider program, a grounded dream of the space age, ultimately gave wings to thousands, a testament to the unpredictable and often surprising journey of innovation.

Today’s 10 Most Popular Science Fiction Books

View on Amazon

Bestseller No. 1

The Big Book of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Sixteen Great Works of Speculative Fiction

Amazon Kindle Edition; English (Publication Language); 434 Pages - 10/14/2025 (Publication Date) - Open Road Media Sci-Fi &...

$9.99

SaleBestseller No. 2

Artemis

Weir, Andy (Author); English (Publication Language); 368 Pages - 07/03/2018 (Publication Date) - Ballantine Books (Publisher)

−$9.05 $9.95

SaleBestseller No. 3

The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2025

Okorafor, Nnedi (Author); English (Publication Language); 416 Pages - 10/21/2025 (Publication Date) - Mariner Books (Publisher)

−$1.00 $18.99

SaleBestseller No. 4

The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2024

Howey, Hugh (Author); English (Publication Language); 384 Pages - 10/22/2024 (Publication Date) - Mariner Books (Publisher)

−$8.26 $10.73

Today’s 10 Most Popular Science Fiction Movies

View on Amazon

Bestseller No. 1

Synchronic

Amazon Prime Video (Video on Demand); Anthony Mackie, Jamie Dornan, Ally Ioannides (Actors)

$2.99

Bestseller No. 2

Independents' Day

Amazon Prime Video (Video on Demand); Fay Gauthier, Sal Landi, Jude Lanston (Actors); Laura Beth Love (Director) - Geoff Meed...

Bestseller No. 3

Absolutely Anything

Amazon Prime Video (Video on Demand); Simon Pegg, Kate Beckinsale, Sanjeev Bhaskar (Actors)

$14.99

Bestseller No. 4

Rescue the Earth

Amazon Prime Video (Video on Demand); Xiao-su Ling, Chao Jiang, Jianyu Liu (Actors); Hui Yu (Director) - Wang Zixin (Writer) -...

$5.99

Bestseller No. 5

First Contact

Amazon Prime Video (Video on Demand); Anna Shields, James Liddell, Chris Cimperman (Actors)

$0.89

Bestseller No. 6

Science Fiction Television Series: Episode Guides, Histories, and Casts and Credits for 62 Prime-Time Shows, 1959 through 1989

Amazon Kindle Edition; Phillips, Mark (Author); English (Publication Language); 711 Pages - 05/12/2014 (Publication Date) -...

$29.99

Bestseller No. 7

Alien Conquest

Amazon Prime Video (Video on Demand); Emily Killian, Anthony Jensen, Tom Sizemore (Actors)

$1.99

Bestseller No. 8

Companion

Amazon Prime Video (Video on Demand); Sophie Thatcher, Jack Quaid, Lukas Gage (Actors); Drew Hancock (Director) - Drew Hancock...

$14.99

Bestseller No. 9

Time Under Fire

Amazon Prime Video (Video on Demand); Jeff Fahey, Richard Tyson, Jack Coleman (Actors); Scott P. Levy (Director) - Tripp Reed...

$2.99

Today’s 10 Most Popular Science Fiction Audiobooks

View on Amazon

SaleBestseller No. 1

The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Vol. 1, 1929-1964: The Greatest Science Fiction Stories of All Time Chosen by the Members of the Science Fiction Writers of America

Audible Audiobook; Robert A. Heinlein (Author) - Oliver Wyman, L. J. Ganser, Richard Ferrone (Narrators)

−$2.82 $19.75

SaleBestseller No. 2

Red Rising

Audible Audiobook; Pierce Brown (Author) - Tim Gerard Reynolds (Narrator); English (Publication Language)

−$3.33 $23.32

SaleBestseller No. 3

We Are Legion (We Are Bob): Bobiverse, Book 1

Audible Audiobook; Dennis E. Taylor (Author) - Ray Porter (Narrator); English (Publication Language)

−$2.49 $17.46

Bestseller No. 4

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Full-Cast Edition)

Audible Audiobook; J.K. Rowling (Author) - Full Cast (Narrator); English (Publication Language)

$29.98

SaleBestseller No. 5

Fourth Wing: Empyrean, Book 1

Audible Audiobook; Rebecca Yarros (Author) - Rebecca Soler, Teddy Hamilton (Narrators); English (Publication Language)

−$3.33 $23.32

SaleBestseller No. 6

Angel Born: Ash Angels, Book 2

Audible Audiobook; Brian K. Fuller (Author) - R.C. Bray (Narrator); English (Publication Language)

−$4.24 $29.66

SaleBestseller No. 7

Lost in Time

Audible Audiobook; A.G. Riddle (Author) - John Skelley (Narrator); English (Publication Language)

−$2.79 $19.56

SaleBestseller No. 8

Contamination Super Boxed Set (Books 0-7): The Complete Post-Apocalyptic Series

Audible Audiobook; T.W. Piperbrook (Author) - Troy Duran (Narrator); English (Publication Language)

−$3.74 $26.21

Today’s 10 Most Popular NASA Lego Sets

View on Amazon

SaleBestseller No. 1

LEGO Technic NASA Mars Rover Perseverance Advanced Building Kit for Kids Ages 10 and Up, NASA Toy with Replica Ingenuity Helicopter, Gift for Kids Who Love Engineering and Science Projects, 42158

−$10.99 $89.00

Bestseller No. 2

LEGO Icons Shuttle Carrier Aircraft Building Set for Adults - Spaceship & Airplane Model Kit for Adults, Ages 18+ - Air & Space Decor - Gift Idea for Men & Women - 10360

$229.95

SaleBestseller No. 3

LEGO Ideas 21312 Women of NASA (231 Pieces)

Features 3 LEGO builds illustrating the areas of expertise of the 4 featured women of NASA

−$6.86 $62.99

SaleBestseller No. 4

LEGO Technic NASA Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle LRV Building Set - Craft Kits for Adults, Ages 18+ - Building Set of Space Rover with Authentic Details - Gift for Birthdays - 42182

−$60.00 $159.99

Bestseller No. 5

LEGO Icons NASA Space Shuttle Discovery Building Sets for Adults - Model Kits for Bookshelf or Office Decor, Ages 18+ Years - Gifts for Men & Women - 10283

$199.99

Bestseller No. 6

LEGO 92176 Ideas NASA Apollo Saturn V Space Rocket and Vehicles, Spaceship Collectors Building Set with Display Stand [Amazon Exclusive], 14+ years

$274.95

Bestseller No. 7

Lego Creator Expert N.A.S.A Apollo 11 Lunar Lander 10266 Building Kit, 1,087 Pieces

$149.99

SaleBestseller No. 8

LEGO Technic Planet Earth and Moon in Orbit Building Set, Outer Space Birthday Gift for 10 Year Olds, Solar System Toy for Imaginative, Independent Play, Space Room Décor for Boys & Girls, 42179

−$10.00 $64.99

SaleBestseller No. 9

LEGO 30682 Technic NASA Mars Rover Perseverance

−$1.30 $8.70

Last update on 2025-12-04 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API