Earth Starfleet contentEdit

I think that a lot of the original text concerning Starfleet was confusing the Earth Starfleet's purpose and values with those of the Federation Starfleet. In Enterprise, it seems that Archer was never picked for his diplomatic skills at all -- witness his brief meeting with Ambassador Soval in the sickbay in "Broken Bow," for example. It seems to me that Earth's Starfleet is simply busy developing its technologies at this time, and providing some limited defense functions against low-level threats to whatever close-by colonies they've established.

As for diplomacy and other high-sounding morals, I think that those are what Captain Archer is developing as he goes along. Certainly, his point of view will have some important effects when he gets back and can start guiding the next generations of explorers, but for now, Earth's Starfleet seems to be much more practical. -- MinutiaeMan 08:17, 23 Dec 2003 (PST)

Earth Starfleet was chartered in Jonathan Archer's lifetime as revealed in the ENT episode "Horizon". Jean Prouvaire 07:11, 4 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Add Admiral Douglas from TATV The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nx09 (talk • contribs).

Branch templateEdit

I would like to propose the following message, to be added to this article and those of all agencies in Starfleet. -- Redge | Talk 18:07, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The branches of Starfleet
Starfleet Command
Starfleet Intelligence Starfleet Security Starfleet Corps of Engineers Starfleet Medical


The suggestion here has been removed because it misused some formatting. You can still find it in the page history (Edit is labeled: Suggestion removed, used id=toc). -- Cid Highwind 18:01, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with the first one as it more clearly shows the different links for those of us without links being underlined in our browsers, the bigger font is good too. -- Avron 03:31, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST)
How about this instead.. it avoids that table/clumping effect.. Captain Mike K. Bartel 05:01, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST)
The branches of Starfleet
Starfleet Command
Starfleet Operations | Starfleet Intelligence | Starfleet Tactical
Starfleet Security | Starfleet Corps of Engineers | Starfleet Medical

Well, it adds two divisions that were not mentioned in the article itself, but for the rest. I only don't like Starfleet Medical being the only one on the second line, so I fixed that. How is it now? --Redge | Talk 11:42, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST)

I like the last one here; my 2¢. — THOR 21:51, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
Dividing Starfleet into pre- and post-Federation sections is a little confusing and inefficient. Combining them into one category with a more detailed timeline, showing the evolution of this agency from a single-planet-single-function agency into the organization it later became through the centuries. Does UESPA still exist in the 24th century? What about the 29th century? Kirk described Starfleet once as a "combined service" but denied being in the military, yet once stated "I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." Colonel West's appearance in Star Trek 6 would indicate that Starfleet Marines of some sort (MACOs?) still exist in the 23rd century. This is convoluted enough without splitting the subject into unnecessary categories. I try to use canon sources as much as possible and minimize speculation. If I do, I usually type it in Italics.--Mike Nobody 02:15, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
I put the table into a template so that it could be used on the other "branch" pages. nWo 4 Life 21:16, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I removed the navigation template from this article and replaced it with a bullet list containing the same links. I feel that the template is misplaced at this position - it is supposed to be used as a navigation help between those articles, not necessarily as a shortcut to avoid "real" content. Speaking of which, this list of "Branches and Agencies" could probably changed into a definition list with a one-sentence explanation of each. If someone feels that this template is still useful as an additional navigation help on this page, it could be added to the bottom of the article, where it belongs. -- Cid Highwind 20:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Two Starfleet articles Edit

Do we really need to divide Starfleet into pre- and post-Federation categories? It seems a little confusing and inefficient to me. Why not combine them into one concise timeline detailing how it began from a single-planet-single-function agency into a de-facto military operation to what it became in later centuries? Is there still a UESPA in the 24th century? What about the 29th century? Kirk once described Starfleet as a "combined service", yet denied being the military, and once stated "I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." There seems to be a Starfleet Marines (MACOs, maybe?)in the 23rd century, due to the presence of Colonel West in Star Trek 6. This subject is too long and convoluted enough without splitting it up into unnecessary categories.--Mike Nobody 07:05, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)


I just reverted the last edit by Mike Nobody, which basically consisted of random speculation, and, for some bizarre reason, the pasting of the content of Starfleet into the article. I'm not entirely sure what his purpose was in doing so, but it certainly didn't strike me as being particularly improving in its content. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:47, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I was attempting to combine Starfleet into one category, with "before" and "after" Federation areas. I floated the idea on the talk page some time ago with no response. Instead of page hopping between Earth and Federation Starfleet, I wanted to unify it into a cohesive timeline of sorts. So, anyone who typed "Starfleet" would have a nice clear point to explore the subject.--Mike Nobody 13:59, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Why Earth's Starfleet and Starfleet are not the same, Starfleet is Earth, Vulcan, Andorian, after the Federation is chartered Earth's Starfleet is "decommissioned" and most if not all of it's ships are retired, otherwise Enterprise NX-01 should have been refitted with a Warp 7 engine and returned to active duty, not placed storage. the ship was only 10 years old in TATV, Kirk's ship (the 1st one) lasted for 40 years. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Wasn't it stated that the NX could not go faster then 5 due to the design? Something in E2 was said to that I think. Terran Officer 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been stated through the series that the engine was only built for speeds up to warp 5, and in episodes where it reached that speed, it caused tremendous strain on the ship's hull. I think the highest the ship ever traveled was 5.2 (in either "The Augments" or "Affliction"/"Divergence", I forget which – likely the latter). In "", it was revealed that the ship could be travel at warp 6.9, but that was only after the plasma injectors were upgrade with advanced technology developed on the alternate Enterprise over a period of 118 years. However, the plasma injectors on the alternate Enterprise were too old to handle the strain of such a high warp factor. --From Andoria with Love 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why separate from Starfleet? Edit

I'm not sure I entirely understand why this article is separate from the one on the Federation Starfleet. The two Starfleets are indivisible, as one directly begot the other. That's sort of the whole narrative point of Enterprise.

It seems vaguely similar to saying there are two United States — one pre-Constitution and one post-Constitution. Was someone born in the Articles of Confederation years less a United States citizen than someone born after the Consitution was ratified? Would the NX-01 crew not have retained their rank in the Federation Starfleet? Clearly, the implication of the finale of Enterprise is that Riker and Troi viewed the NX-01 as the "first" Enterprise in the Federation Starfleet family of Enterprises, so why are we laboring to maintain a separation?

If one is trying to write with precision, and one is speaking of "the first _______" in Starfleet history, one currently has to link to two separate articles. This just seems awfully cumbersome, and maybe even anti-canonical. CzechOut | 13:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Earth Starfleet is Earth Starfleet. The Federation Starfleet is not just a continuation of Earth Starfleet, but either an amalgamation of the founding member's forces or a completely new creation. There are also many differences, such as ranks, protocols, organisation etc. - Mada101 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
See Forum:Two Starfleets?! Are there any proofs?--Bravomike 07:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, first off, I'd point out that there IS a school of thought that says that, legally-speaking, the United States of America that existed under the Articles of Confederation is not the state that exists today; that, rather, under the Articles, the United States was an alliance of independent states that lacked what we would today refer to as statehood under international law, much like the Commonwealth of Independent States or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Citizenship then being granted to all of those who were citizens of the US states upon ratification of the Constitution and establishment of the new United States.
Secondly, the separation between the United Earth Starfleet -- this article really ought to be called "United Earth Starfleet" rather than "Earth Starfleet," though, because Earth is a planet, whereas United Earth was the state that the Starfleet of ENT served -- is self-evident. Services like this are state organizations -- they exist to serve the state, and when a new state is created, then so too is the new service. Thus, the modern-day Royal Navy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a distinct organization from the Royal Scots Navy of the Kingdom of Scotland that preceeded it, because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a distinct state from the Kingdom of Scotland.
The United Earth Starfleet served United Earth. The Federation Starfleet serves the United Federation of Planets. They are self-evidently different organizations on that basis alone. -- Sci 13:28 10 FEB 2008 UTC


I am curious, while it is often called "Starfleet", if the actual name of the organization is officially "Earth Starfleet" why is the page not named so? That term currently redirects here, and it's not anything I ever really paid attention to until suddenly a few moments ago. Is this to allow for the fact of how often it's referred to as "Starfleet"? --Terran Officer 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

When was it "officially" referred to as "Earth Starfleet"? --Alan del Beccio 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I never really heard it called Earth Starfleet, maybe it was here and there, and I don't recall, I've just notice the redirect link and even this article naming it as "Earth Starfleet" --Terran Officer 02:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This organization has never been referred to as "Earth Starfleet" or "United Earth Starfleet" or anything really other than simply "Starfleet." What's interesting, is that its "successor" Starfleet has been referred to as the "Federation Starfleet" a multitude of times (TNG: "The Most Toys", "The Best of Both Worlds"; DS9: "Tribunal"; VOY: "Dark Frontier").
The term "Earth Starfleet" seems to be a fan-created term used to disambiguate the two organizations (which the "Federation Starfleet" term shows they are in fact separate). The page is properly placed here with a "(Earth)" or maybe "(United Earth)" disambig title as opposed to anywhere else.--Tim Thomason 22:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ad Astra Per AsperaEdit

Translation please. --AC84 01:38, 22 March 2006 (PST)

"To the stars through difficulty" This starfleet motto originated from a plaque on the launchpad of the Apollo 1 spacecraft. During launch the craft was destroyed by fire, tragically killing the crew. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).


Is there a canon-based emblem or logo for the Federation Starfleet (different from Starfleet (Earth))? I'm surprised not to find one in this article, and a preliminary search didn't result in anything probative. - Intricated 18:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So or so, this is not the "Starfleet Emblem" like written in the subtitle, it's the emblem of "Star Fleet COMMAND". Zen Orious 20:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The First Vulcan in StarfleetEdit

Yeah, we all know how it is T'Pol Due to Enterprise, but I know it was popular to say it was Spock. I belive I saw an argument someplace on this site it was never said that He was indeed the first Vulcan in Starfleet. Does someone know where it is? I can't seem to find it, if it wasn't this site, no biggie (Though it should be researched and see if it's true or not if it wasn't this site) Thanks for your time. -- Terran Officer 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it was said, it is easy to explain how it is not an inconsistency with T'Pol. She was the first vulcan inthe Earth Starfleet. If Spock was indeed said to also be the first, then he was the first in the Federation Starfleet. We've used that distinction a dozen other times, after all.
Off the top of my head, though, I cannot remember where this was said in canon. I know it is a common belief, as you said, but just can't think where it comes from. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would have been my argument for that (As it would be for the NX-01's name, but that's another topic) --Terran Officer 09:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I finally found it, the mention. It was actually on Wikiepdia, maybe it should be mentioned here as well?

  • Many fans believe that Spock is the first Vulcan to join Starfleet, a fact that appears to be contradicted by the series Star Trek: Enterprise; in fact, there is no reference to Spock being the first. It has been suggested that he is the first to graduate from Starfleet Academy, however. Note: some official documentation from Paramount such as the website support the first-Vulcan-in-Starfleet theory, as do some original Trek novels, however these sources are not considered canon: only what is shown on screen is considered canon in the Star Trek universe.

Just a thought... --Terran Officer 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well a reasonable extrapolation just from TOS itself is that Spock isn't the first. TOS: "The Immunity Syndrome" establishes that the USS Intrepid was crewed entirely by Vulcans. It can be logically inferred that at least its captain must've been older than Spock. Taking into account Enterprise as well, though, it seems clear to me that the act of establishing the Federation and a combined Starfleet would've meant immediate transfers of commission by those serving on what Vulcan ships remained after T'Pau's reforms. I think it can be safely assumed that T'Pol would've been immediately commissioned into Federation Starfleet, perhaps on Day 1 of its existence. I would also tend to think that Star Trek (XI) might very well weigh in on this matter. CzechOut | 01:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere in the TOS episodes was it ever said or even implied that Spock was the first Vulcan Starfleet anything. What was stated in the show was that Spock was considered to be the best first officer in the fleet. -- 16:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of not wanting to start a new fanon phenomenon, where in canon was that said, and in what context (humorous, serious)? --OuroborosCobra talk 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's from "Amok Time". Kirk, during a very serious moment, says this to Spock: "You've been called the best first officer in the fleet. That's an enormous asset to me." - Bridge 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's also in Operation--Annihilate!. Quote-
  • "I said, please don't tell Spock I said he was the best first officer in the fleet."
  • "Why, thank you, doctor."
  • "You were so worried about his Vulcan eyes you forgot about his Vulcan ears."
    • McCoy, Spock, and Kirk
T'Pishek 04:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Moore's Statement Edit

A recent addition to the Starfleet article lists a background note about Ronald D. Moore commenting that Starfleet is the military/scientific/exploratory arm of the United Federation of Planets. This seems kind of redundant due to the fact that this is basically already stated in the introduction statement. Should it be kept? - Enzo Aquarius 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a controversy for a long time as to whether Starfleet was military in nature (Gene's vision was exploratory & diplomatic, as I understand). Although to a degree, especially since the Dominion War, I think this has been settled, having a statement from a member of the writing staff may have value. -- StAkAr Karnak 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I feel it was settled in TOS: "Errand of Mercy", where Starfleet was gearing up for war with the Klingons. Kind of makes clear that they were the military arm. There are many other examples as well, such as Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Federation Member Planets MilitariesEdit

Do all the Federation member worlds have militaries aside from Starfleet? In the DS9 novel Unity, Trill had it's own military but in Battle for Betazed it appeared they had no military, I know it isn't cannon. However the Vulcans had an Intelligence or Security division days of TNG, that would be their pacifist version of a military. I ask this because it was assumed that the Bajoran Malitia would be absorbed into Starfleet, but I was wondering if they would remain intact and act as a domestic security or defense? -- 00:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)"

Typically, a planet's security force/space arm etc... is asorbed into starfleet. At least, that's what I have read.--Terran Officer 21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The nature of Starfleet leads me to believe that the core worlds, the worlds that are closer to Earth and have larger populations, or the founding members of the Federation have had their military absorbed into Starfleet. However, as the Federation expanded, Starfleet's ability to defend so many individual planets would be slim to null. So a planet having its own militia, even if JUST to hold off till Starfleet can arrive is reasonable. Especially on border planets like Bajor.
It also may be true that "Starfleet" and "Federation Military" may not be one and the same. Starfleet may just be one facet of the military, like the Army in the United States Department of Defense. Local planets may have something analogous to the National Guard; technically part of Starfleet, but not deployed beyond the planet (or system). --Sdamon 11:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What I've always assumed is that the planet's military gets absorbed into Starfleet, which serves as the Federation's sole military. Those troops then answer to the entire Federation, or "national," government. Each planet, however, retains it's own native defense force which acts like a supplement to Starfleet, like a National Guard. This force would then answer only to the local planet's "sub-national" government. 12:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Commander, Starfleet v. Commander-in-Chief Edit

In the article, it is stated that the Commander, Starfleet, and the Commander in Chief have different responsibilities. Yet, in the articles for both positions, it speculates that the positions may be one and the same. Is there canon proof either way? Ssaint04 15:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I do not believe they are the same however. What do you think? Federation 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at their uniforms, the ones of Commander, Starfleet and Commander in Chief are significant different. C-in-C has even more lametta -- Kobi 12:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That their uniforms are different is no confirmation that their roles are different. Star Trek has often played fast and loose with positions, ranks, and titles. And certainly, there is no indication that Starfleet Command is somehow separate from Starfleet Academy hierarchically. That is pure speculation with no basis in fact. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Starfleet and Bashir's Father Edit

Correct me where I'm wrong, but a "country" where the Military Personel are held up as the paragons of all virtue (look how many times in the show people say something about the greatness and incoruptability of Starfleet Officers), the military and police force are the same, and the military can try civilians like Bashir's father and even accept plea bargan's, the constitution provides for an intelligence service above the law that answers to nobody, that country is a Fascist country, no? Should it be mentioned that the Federation would be, in the 20th century, considered Fascist? Maybe in italics. 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I admit this is strange and it does bother other people. Federation 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think fascism isn't quite accurate. That implies a collectivist view that supersedes the individual. The independence and near autonomy of Starfleet captains runs counter to that. Unfortunately, the term that better applies is military dictatorship. Starfleet nominally reports to the Federation President but pretty much does as it pleases. It controls everything military/exploratory/scientific/diplomatic/judicial. It has all the warships. It controls the starbases. It mines the wormholes. Whether or how the Prime Directive is applied seems to be at the whim of individual officers. You'll find instances where officers speak of Starfleet and the Federation as if they were the same entity. It could be argued that only the integrity and autonomy of individual officers such as Jean-Luc Picard has kept Starfleet in check.
Not only does Starfleet control the Federation, Earth controls Starfleet. The majority of Starfleet ships have Earth-related names. Despite being only one (1) species out of 150+, the majority of Starfleet senior officers are Human or human-hybrids. (The rest are humanoids. Silicoid and insectoid races need not apply?)
See for yourself. Get a list of ships and go through the names. Take a look at the officers (lieutenant commanders and up) and see what they are. So, despite the vision that inspired it all, the StarTrek universe is a very disturbing place when you look closely. :( --StarFire209 23:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all where does it say that Starfleet accepted the plea bargain by themselves they could have been working with whatever the Federation's legal arm is. Next of all what do you expect the Federation to do mantain little space branches that do each seperate task by themselves. Third off, how do you know that most of the ships have Earth based names we've never seen that many ships (plus what do you expect the writers to do come up with weirdo names supposedly from other planets). Then you don't see that many silicoid or insectoid officers because it's probably uncomfortable or untenable on standard starships (and once again its a TV series its hard to produce costumes to portray these). The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
RE:User:Federation – Perhaps the judge/magistrate is either starfleet JAG officer or other official depending on the severity of the crime and the place it was committed, In the Case of Mr Bashir, he committed an act of genetic enginnering which is outlawed by the federation, so perhaps a starfleet JAG officer was the best choice to preside over the case, plus Mr Bashir was also Human and the subject of the genetic engineering was a serving Starfleet officer himself. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Bajorans in StarfleetEdit

I suppose a similar question could be raised in regard to Ro Laren, but is an explanation ever given in canon about how Bajorans could have entered Starfleet Academy during the Cardassian Occupation? Is there no rule about non-Federation citizens attending the Academy and becoming Starfleet officers, if they follow the process? Thanks for clearing up my confusion. --Fsotrain09 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The closest to an explanation for that probably is the process Nog had to go through - see Nog#Starfleet career. -- Cid Highwind 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How Powerful are the Humans? Edit

There is a passage in the Starfleet bio that states the Vulcans and Andorians as being more advanced and powerful as opposed to the humans, I doubt this is true. The Humans field very advanced technology and starships definitely superior to that of the Vulcans and Andorians as well as other races. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Humans are the most interested species in space exploration, as a result they would probably cater to more advanced starships (Galaxy, Sovereign, Prometheus...) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

That section specifically says it is about early Starfleet (that is what "fledgling" means"), and early on the Vulcans and Andorians were indeed far more advanced that humans. The Galaxy class etc. are still 200 years away. In this time period, the Vulcans and Andorian ships are faster, better armed, equipped with shields and tractor beams, and many other technologies Earth ships lack. Also, your new addition about Earth having more classes of ships doesn't hold up. I can only think of 4 classes of warships in Earth service at the time of fledgling Starfleet, the new warp-7 class, the NX-class, the Intrepid type, and the unnamed triangle shaped ships. 4, and we don't even know if they are all still in service at the start of the Federation. The Vulcans, on the other hand, have the Suurok class, the Suurok class, the D'kyr-type, the Maymora class, possibly the future Vulcan cruiser, the Vulcan cruiser, the Vulcan fighter. That is 6-7 to Earth's 4. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry, I did not even see the word fledgling, you are completley right. In 23rd and 24th centuries however, what would be the power relation? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Not sure myself. The thing is, while a lot of people have decided that later designs like the Galaxy class etc. are "Earth" designs, I don't think there is any real evidence for that. Sure, Earth was involved in the design, but do we know they weren't joint projects with Andoria and Vulcan? Do we know that the involvement of Earth wasn't just some Human designers? It would be like calling the Airbus A320 a British airliner, when in fact it is a joint design by a bunch of European nations. I don't think it is ever truly stated what the relationship of Earth is as opposed to simply a unified Federation system. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears they would be of Human design; all Human starships retain the standard, although different versions, of starship design (saucer section). The Vulcans and Andorians have those that are completely different. The starfleet vessels are all constructed in the Sol System which is the native solar system of the Humans. The starships systems and markings are all in English. The Humans are obviously a fast-evolving society that were able to allow their initial NX-01 to become such powerful vessels such as the Galaxy. It's obvious that the Humans designed the ships as well as commanded them. Because they are so concerned with exploration they built fleets of starships (Starfleet) and because their are so many they make up the majority of the Federation vessels. From how I see it the Earth Starfleet is just Starfleet, the Vulcans and Andorians have their own fleets. Of course these fleets are all unified as one federation. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Look at the airplane today. It still retains all the basic design elements, no matter where it is constructed, that doesn't make all aircraft "American" just because the Wright Brothers did the first one. Markings being in English doesn't mean much either, some standard would have to be picked throughout Starfleet, and Earth has been established as the headquarters of the Federation. Not all ships are built in Sol either, you are forgetting things like the Beta Antares Ship Yards, and others. The fact is, there is no canon evidence that Starfleet and its designs are Earth only or majority, only speculation that can have multiple explanations with multiple outcomes and conclusions. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the other races of the Federation have their own fleets, their own designs. The Vulcans took 200 years to break the Warp 2 barrier (I think that is right), and it took the humans only a matter of months. The starships we see in command of the humans are all a result of their own engineering and design. Simply because their interest in exploration is so great, they constructed many and therefor established a dominant presence in the Federation fleet. There is no cannon proof that it is of their design and their in no cannon proof that it isn't, however they are Human starships and starfleet is mainly a Human organization. The Federation is of course not but Starfleet stems from the Earth Starfleet and most of the Federation Starfleet consists of Earth Starships (+Exploration). It is obvious to assume that the humans have made advances since the NX and the Galaxy, Intrepid, and etc.. are all proof. As I said before the Vulcans only oversaw the Human development, they assisted because the humans asked they do so, they were not responsible for their design nor their production, just advisers. It was up to the Humans to create their own fleet of starships. If you look at the parallel universe, the humans stole the technology of the Vulcans and created their own fleet, their own design. The Vulcans obviously did not assist them.

Saying that the humans are not responsible would be saying that they really did not accomplish anything and that's not true at all. Those have to be Human starships. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Technically, no starships belong to any species. Starships are built by groups of people working usually within an agency or government. "Vulcan" starships are created by the Vulcan planetary government (likely Vulcan High Command), and the "Andorian" starships are built by the Andorian Empire. Prior to the Federation, both Earth Starfleet and UESPA (and the ECS) were involved in the process of creating and operating starships. After that, it was the Federation Starfleet, and likely UESPA until at least 2293, who built starships identified as "human" starships. While for the first hundred years or so, Humans may have been the primary ship-builders, by 2273 (Star Trek: The Motion Picture) Starfleet seems to have been pretty well-integrated with "aliens." A good hint that Starfleet adapted other member's technology is the mention of a "warp 7" ship ten years after the massive leap to Warp 5. This tops the known Vulcan maximum of Warp 6.5.
Additionally, I agree with the assessment that Humans did expand technologically faster than the Vulcans (who were too focused on either killing themselves, or promoting logic). But the Vulcans were still more advanced than the Humans in 2161 (what with their 2000 year head start and all).--Tim Thomason 00:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that was really bothering me; I just want to ensure that the humans get credit for those magnificent starships like the Galaxy or Intrepid. Starfleet is mostly a Human agency. Would anyone agree with me that the starships of the 23rd and 24th centuries represent the Human race? -- User:
Hard to say to be honest, we only know (as far as I remember) of two people who have performed or contributed to major work on construction of starships: Leah Brahms (Galaxy-class development) and Benjamin Sisko (Defiant-class development), both of which are Human. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The ship's were clearly based on Human designs, based on the similarities they had to Earth Starfleet ship designs, but as far as the technology contained within, that is speculative, and could just as well be "alien" derived as Human derived. Also keep in mind the USS Hera, USS Intrepid and USS T'Kumbra. --Alan del Beccio 02:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, IP users, please sign your comments with ~~~~ so others can associate contributors with their comments. --Alan del Beccio 02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There probably would be signs of alien technology within starfleet vessels, the humans are more willing to accecpt such things, they cooperate. It's just the Humans are considered a "spacefaring, intelligent species"; if they are not responsible for the creation of the ships they command, how is that statement true? Besides, the other races have their own types of vessels, however a Human vessel with alien inspiration is not that far fetched; it still remains a Human vessel though. A question, WHAT TYPE OF EARTH STARFLEET VESSELS WOULD BE SEEN IN THE 23RD AND 24TH CENTURIES? If someone could answer that please.
Don't read this before you read the above statement..."It was under Starfleet's auspices that humanity expanded upon Cochrane's vision of instellar warp flight. Incorporating research begun by Cochrane and Henry Archer in 2119, Starfleet research led to the first successful flight of Warp 3 engines in the 2140s.[citation needed] The NX program greatly expanded the reach of humanity across the stars.[citation needed] In 2151, Starfleet launches the first Human Warp 5-capable starship, the Enterprise (in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Broken Bow") followed by the Columbia (according to the Enterprise episode "") in 2155, and other vessels. Starfleet became the lead exploratory and military wing of the United Federation of Planets. While ships like the USS Enterprise have a mixed-species crew, other vessels, such as the USS Intrepid in the Star Trek episode "The Immunity Syndrome and the USS T'Kumbra in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Take Me Out to the Holosuite", have single-species crews."
This explains the Human Starfleet and how it became Starfleet, representing its unified Federation as opposed to just Earth. When the Federation was formed, Earth Starfleet then became Starfleet and the member races also contributed their own vessels to this Starfleet. Bottom line is that Starfleet is mainly a Human organization and the ships that the humans command are Human ships whether they were assisted by aliens or not. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
In Star Trek: First Contact, when Lily Sloane asks Captain Picard how much the Enterprise E cost, he said something along the lines that "the acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force in our lives" (Humanity). I am sure that within that statement the point of Humanity's involvement may be extracted. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Many Starfleet vessels carry the name of vessels which existed on Earth.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Quite so indeed, though there are the odd ones named after non-Human sources (USS T'Kumbra for example), though yes, the majority are named for Human sources which may mean a more Human voice in terms of naming conventions. Also, when signing your posts, don't put a <nowiki> tag around the tildes (~) please, thanks. ;) - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 14:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Then may someone answer what type of Human vessels exist in Starfleet? The starships we see today like the the Galaxy class and Soveriergn, are they the result of (mostly) Human ingenuity. Like I said before the other races have their own ships, WHERE ARE THE HUMAN'S??????? There has to be an answer. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
To be honest, I think the only thing that can be thought is pure speculation. I don't recall any actual 'full out Human' starship designs in the 23rd/24th century Starfleet. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Under Starbase/Starships in the Starfleet article it states "The Human starships and starbases make up the majority of Starfleet". How can that be backed up? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
It can't, because it was never stated in canon. Even if they were built at Sol, had Earth names, had Earth names, etc., that does NOT make them "human starships", no more than the American submarine fleet is a "Connecticut submarine fleet", despite the fact that most of them were built at Groton, CT. They are American ships, not Connecticut ships, just as starfleet vessels are Federation starships (stated hundreds of times in canon), not Earth ships. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Then who are responsible for the fleets of starships like the Enterpprise D or etc...?, keep in mind they resemble the NX-01, a Human starship. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
An Airbus A320 resembles a Boeing 737. Besides, technological influence is NOT proof of ownership, just proof that Earth helped a lot, probably was even the lead in, the design. That's it, but even that is not citable. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Under the Earth Starfleet bio it says "The Earth Starfleet was succeeded in 2161 by the new Starfleet of the United Federation of Planets, of which the Earth fleet formed a major part. (ENT: "Zero Hour", "These Are the Voyages...")" Now how do you percieve this? I mean the Earth Starfleet only had about a dozen vessels at the time, how would they form a major part? I'm thinking that the vessels of Starfleet are Mainly Human of course with alien help. That's what I'm saying. There is too much different speculation, that's why I hate these wiki sites, the same thing happens on the Star Wars one. It's better just to contact the producers, not leave it in the hands of fans. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Following the events of the Kir'Shara arc, the Vulcan High Command was disbanded, if you recall. That probably means a reduction in the Vulcan fleet. In addition, we have now idea as to the size of the fleet in 2161 for Earth, non at all. Our knowledge of the fleet ends in 2155, and even there it is quite limited. We have entire classes of vessels we have no idea the numbers for. We also have no idea how many ships were constructed for the Earth-Romulan war, how many ships other powers lost to Romulan attacks, etc. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I found it, in under Federation History, The ships designated USS are the Human vessels which represent the Federation. --Nick is not a canon source. See the content and resource policies. In addition, that very fact is contradicted directly by canon, where the USS Intrepid and the USS T'Kumbra were crewed entirely by Vulcans. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
A Human starship commanded by Vulcans, they were members of Starfleet. What's wrong with giving the Humans the proper credit they deserve? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
There was not a Human on board. They were never called "human starships". In fact, throughout Star Trek, ships are specifically identified as Federation starships, not human starships. There is just no canon evidence to say they were owned by Earth, that Starfleet is just Earth, or anything like that. No more than the submarine/Connecticut example I gave you. And as for the "what's wrong with giving Humans the proper credit they deserve", we are making a canon database here, not a fanboy one. Period. Find a canon statement, and it goes in. I think you, for one, have seriously missed the lessons of Gene Roddenberry. He did not create a Human only universe, he created a Federation of many races as equals. He made that largely because of racial issues and inequalities that existed in his own time. You seem to have learned none of it. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not like I am prejudice towards the other races in fact my favorite race is the Borg, it's just that my entire life watching Star Trek, I perceived those ships as representing the Human race. Forgive me if I am coming off as ignorant but that is in no means my intentions. I am familiar as to the basis of Gene Roddenberrys creation of Star Trek and I honor that, please don't assume that I am not. As of a couple days ago, I have witnessed an argument that suggests something in which is completely opposite to my perception that I have indulged for so many years, so forgive me if I am a bit assertive in displaying my beliefs. But do not assume for a second that I am ignorant, I did not create this debate to be accused of that, and I certainly have more important things to rather than be insulted. If you are right in this argument than you are right, and I will accept my misconception. However, it would be nice to have a professional view of the matter. Again I am sorry that it had to turn out like this and lead to accusations of ignorance, it was not my intention. I am glad of what you are doing here though, creating this database; I wish you all luck with it. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Well, the simple fact is that the era of "exclusively human" starships seen onscreen in Star Trek ended in the year 2151, when the human-designed Enterprise NX-01 accepted a Vulcan science officer. in TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY, as well as the movies, the ships were designed with the help of non-humans, were crewed with humans working alongside numerous and increasing numbers of non-humans, commanded by senior officers and admirals and politicians who were non-humans, in a political entity where humans are very much the minority. So calling them "human ships", "human crews", a "human government" would all be greatly in error, and quite "specist" (i.e. "racist" toward non-humans). Just relaying what's been seen onscreen. Starfleet is not a Human organization, as Kirk himself said early on, its a "combined service" -- Captain MKB 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Why is it that the Federation Starfleet retains much of the characteristics of Earth's Starfleet including the emblem, ships, as well as name. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Because it is a TV show made by humans. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I was reading an article about prop design in alien ships - in one of the Enterprise episodes the crew is inside a vulcan ship for some reason, it said the vulcan controls were made jewel like on purpose in order to resemble the controls in the Original Series bridge set - so I would imagine this went meant to allude to the incorporation of Vulcan technology in the future Federation Starfleet. – Starzaz 21:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"USS" Is Earth American? Edit

Doesn't USS stand for United States Ship? How can Starfleet/Federation vessels bear that title? Even if, as someone speculated, those particular ships represent Earth within the Federation, or within Starfleet: why should the US in turn represent Earth? (That San Fransisco is the capital of the Federation is perhaps forgiveable, but this is surely not.) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

USS only is "United States Ship" in the real world today. It could just as easily mean "United Space Ship" then, and therefore would not even be Earth-centric. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. You're quite right. I just read somewhere else that Gene Roddenberry actually explained that it stood for United Space Starship. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It was also revealed in "Court Martial" that "USS" stands for "United Star Ship". There may have been other episodes stating their meaning, but I can't think of any at the moment. --From Andoria with Love 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It was also covered in "The Cage" when Captain Pike refers to the Enterprise as the "United Space Ship..." Personally, I always assumed it was short for "United Federation of Planets Star Ship", but thats pure speculation on my part. General Grant 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of Ships Edit

This text was recently added to the Starbases/Starships section of the article by an anon.

"However, one could argue with comparisons to real life armies today. For example the US army has the 101st Airborne Division, but there are not 101 active airborne divisions in the US Army. A logical assumption would be around 6,000 ships up to 8,000, as most fan-based websites give that type of estimate."

I agree with the sentiment regarding the number of ships in Starfleet. (See Ship Numbers at talk:Registry for my take.)

Changing an article without discussion or identifying oneself seems somehow less than straightforward.
Comparing army divisions with navy ships is an apples and oranges kind of thing. The differences might obscure the similarities.
Estimates from "most fan-based websites" don't belong in MA.

Should the Ron Moore quote this text challenges be in the background section with the other Ron Moore quotes? Should challenges to this quote be in the article at all or should they be in the talk page? – StarFire209 04:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed anonymous's additions. Moved Ron Moore's quote to background. Added disclaimer regarding counting starships. – StarFire209 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Where does it say anywhere that UESPA is part of Starfleet. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

There is a seal on the floor of the great hall in Starfleet Headquarters belonging to the combined Starfleet and UESPA. Yuo can see it here. --From Andoria with Love 03:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That may have been because it was a combined headquarters and besides that was on the seal of Earth Starfleet not the Federation Starfleet this article is about. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Well, in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" UESPA is mentioned as being the Enterprises' operating authority, as well as being part of some kind of "combined service" and Kirk reports directly to UESPA HQ in "Charlie X". Since it is later firmly established that Kirk is an officer in the Federation Starfleet, this would imply that UESPA was at that time a subsidiary part of the Federation Starfleet, or at least an associated organization with some sort of authority over Fleet operations. General Grant 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

True, I'll shutup now. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).