Talk:Ark (G1)

Feel free to steal any of this for your Ark profile. http://funaroverse.db-destiny.net/ARK/

It's a bit out of date. The Ark-like thign at the bottom I now know to be an Autobot shuttle from here: [1]

Also, I might have Blaze's art up, not Sizzle's. (They got swapped on their packaging you see...)

The Asteroid association piece is probably uour best source for the look of the Ark in comics continuity.

Bear with me for a moment. This is all conjecture, and should be marked as such if it is put in the article, but it's become a bit of a fixed idea with me. All throughout the Ultimate Guide, the Ark is referred to as "the Ark", while other ships such as Nemesis are referred to in italics, minus the definite article. Coupled with the fact that the Ark is specifically the first of its line, and yet the line is called the Vanguard-class strongly implies, to me, that the Ark's actual NAME is Vanguard, and it is simply referred to familiarly as "the Ark" because, well, it ended up being an ark. -LV 02:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's quite possible. Any other interpetation woudl reauire the ship being built in TWW (though not used for many millions of year) the Vandard, NOT the Ark. That's possible, ti was never named, but awkward.

Alternately, it's possible the Vangard was re-christened at some point after a refit, or for the astertoid mission.

The UK comic called it the last of the great Arks, possibly the Vandarrd class simply became known as 'Arks,' witht heir crew-of-thousands capacity as theyw ere used one-by-one to found colonies? (As seen in Desertion of the Dinobots.) Since the Arks was the LAST Ark on Cybertron it became,w ell... 'The Ark.' ...which was basicly your suggestion, wasn't it? -Derik 02:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That does look to be blaze there. What's the source for his being an engineer on the Ark, so I can ref it?

I was looking through DW's MTMTE #7 and think it's kinda funny that their version of the ark is missing the spoiler on the back. Could't get anyone to pimp their ride I guess. Oh and it's odd that the DK guide that is 90% focused on DW has a cut-away of a Marvel comic stlye ark rather than a cartoon style one as in the actual DW comics.

Sizze as the ark enginner comes from the G2 annual, of which I only have scans of liek 1/3, but it's DAMN INTEWRESTING stuff, I'm rabid to find a copy of it for sale...

IM me if you want me to send you the actual scans to check out. -Derik 13:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

you have cause me to re-read the ark's entry in the ultimate guide. I lvoe that there's a BAR on it. Also- landing gear. Why do they bother? the Ark just crashes everyywhere it goes. Has it EVER landed, even ONCE? -Derik 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It lands on the moon successfully when Blaster and Grimlock fight. --ItsWalky 06:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

you mean the time it was unable to take off? Except,t hat wa because it wa bombarded, not because it crashed for once. -Derik 06:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Weird Armaments

This is a question for tech-oriented, or just logic-oriented people: Okay, I know its canon according to the DK Ultimate Guide, but why does the Ark have "16 particle-combustion canons (port), 16 laser emitters (starboard)"? Wouldn't it make sense to have a mixture of weapons on both sides of the ship? What happens if the Autobots run into a ship like the Enterprise (which is immune to 'lasers'), and that ship decides to attack on the only side that cannot harm them? --FFN 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly it relates to the asteroid-clearing mission? Lasers are a way of, IIRC, imparting motion over time to bodies in motion (And they're emitters, not cannons.) So maybe the port side is optimized for blowing asteroids up, and the starboard size is optimized to pushing the resulting chunks of rocks around? The sides are themed so the Ark could use all 16 at once on the asteroids in one 'pass.' If you're making a port pass on an asteroid to blow it to pieces, if the weapons were 'balanced' you'd only be able to use 8 of the particle-combustion cannons.

(This is the only explanation I can think of.) -18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that makes very much sense. --Steve-o 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it is possible the Ark is not designed as a warship, so her weapons are viewed as mission specific tools rather than combat rated. With the name "Ark" I'd assume she was designed for relocating Autobots to distant worlds, and thus her armaments are designed to gather materials for new construction and perhaps a method of mining for sources of energy needed to sustain the crew. Sort of like a swiss army knife. You many have lots of tools, but you really can only use one at a time, so you make the most of that tool. Could be the Ark doesn't have the power to use all her weapons and so mounts all of one kind on a side for maximum potential and then if the other kind is needed, roll to expose the unused side. ~Ithekro

This comes up further up the page, but the Ark (*coughcoughcoughVanguardcoughcoughcough* isn't actually ever intended to be an ark until the IDW books. Its name doesn't really make sense - it's more-or-less explicitly designed to go save the planet from the asteroids in the older G1 material...although...is it the Ark they're planning to leave Cybertron in in TWW1? -LV 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Ark in the Comic was likely NOT designed/built specifically to take out the asteroids since it was specifically called "the last of the great Arks". There were others of its kind before the asteroids were a threat. And in the Cartoon there wasn't any asteroid belt to clear at all, and it was specifically established in Desertion of the Dinobots that other ships just like it had taken refugees from Cybertron before. So they VERY likely were built as Arks.

Okay. I guess I'm being misled by the Ultimate Guide, which specifically states that the Ark was the first of its kind, and (I don't have it handy) I believe that it was a battleship. Also, sign your comments, Derik. -LV 04:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

From an engineering perspective, regardless of wether the Ark was an explorer or a warship, it doesn't make any bloody sense to restrict certain weapons to just one facing arc each, unless the weapon is restricted by length and stability issues (such as a main gun that extends along the keel of the ship). As for the assumption that it could easily roll to the other side to fire its port cannons or whatever, that's just incredibly poor tactics - while the thrusters are firing to turn the ship, its being hammered by the enemy vessel. One would also hope its armed with weapons covering its dorsal, ventral and aft arcs as well. --FFN 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't know what the fields of fire are on any of these guns. It's entirely possible that they can all elevate or depress ninety degrees. -LV 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actual Size?

Did either the Titanium toy, the DK Guide, or any Japanese stuff ever give actual dimensions for the Ark? Hight, Length and such? --ZacWilliam 02:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

You know, we have a bot that can replace all in-article instances of just "Ark" to "Ark (G1)". I'm of the opinion that whenever there's a disambig page, the name sans parenthetical identifier should ALWAYS go to the disambig. At the very least, it shows people the breadth of TFdom and encourages them to look around more. --M Sipher 22:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I tried to suggest that when I reverted it back, but I ran out of room on the summary line. -- SFH 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Made of win

"Doooo Dooooooo DOOTDOOTDOOT DOOOOOO!" is awesome. --Andrusi 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh... Can I ask why? --66.82.9.74 00:19, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

...And if I can, what is the caption mean, exactly?

It's one of the pieces of incidental music from the cartoon. --abates 00:51, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Uh... huh. I can hardly recognize it. --66.82.9.74 11:23, 26 July 2011 (EDT)