What was the line in "Explorers" that caused the problem with the dates for the two Lexingtons? What had the ship been doing, and what was the timeframe quoted?
-MMoM Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The idea was that Drs. Lense and Bashir both graduated at the same time, but while Lense got the Lexington, Bashir got DS9. Meaning that they both got their assignments in 2369, before the other Lexington was mentioned on TNG the following year.
Mrak
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Ah...
Wasn't there something about the ship being on a mapping mission or something, too? (For my shiplist.)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yes, the Lexington was mentioned in "Thine Own Self" as being on a mapping mission or maybe some transport mission.
The problem is that the Encyclopedia insists that there was an Excelsior-class Lexington which was in service for "Thine Own Self" -- but the dialogue in "Explorers" dictates that it must be the Nebula-class... unless Dr. Lense switched ships and forgot to mention that as an aside.
Not that it's definitive proof, but IIRC the Nebula-class Lexington's registry was in the NCC-61xxx range... which would probably mean that the ship was at least five or ten years old. Maybe more.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, as sad as it may seem, I'd be more inclined to call it a case of Melbourne-syndrome and say they were both in service at the same time...
-MMoM
P.S.
So nothing more was mentioned of the ship in "Explorers" thanthat it was the ship she was from??
-MM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I think the Nebula was supposed to be on a deep-space mission for the last three years, something like that. But you can say the ship docked at DS9 was not the Lexington but some other Nebula. We were never able to read the name/registry. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
No, they specifically said that the Lexington was docking at DS9 for crew's shore leave, or whatever. And yes, they were in the middle of a long-duration mission.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: Mrak
Priceless.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Heh. You should see when I'm REALLY in a hurry, and I spell it "Narj".
Narj
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The way I see it, the TNG Lexington was only referred to by name. It was never stated that it was an Excelsior class vessel, or what registry number it had. Therefore, since the DS9 Lexington was clearly seen to be a Nebula, & that it was in operation even before the TNG reference to it, then I conclude that there never was an Excelsior Lexington (according to my canon list; I still have the Excelsior Lex in my official list).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Exactly! The Melbourne conundrum exists because both of the identically-numbered models were seen on screen. But the TNG-Lexington was only mentioned. Therefore, the Excelsior-Lexington is nothing more than an error in the Encyclopedia.
Although I've had a somewhat looser interpretation -- that the Excelsior-Lexington did indeed exist, but it was already decommissioned/destroyed some years before the Nebula-Lexington was launched. It just wasn't seen in an episode is all.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)