User:Craigboy/Chinese Docking Mechanism

The Chinese Docking Mechanism is a unofficial name for the device used to join Chinese spacecraft to another, to allow the passage of crew from one ship to the other, or join two craft for testing purposes. (like that would be a common conversation kind of thing?) It was first used on used on Tiangong-1 and the post-Shezhou 7 spacecraft in 2011. The docking mechanism is comparable to... The chinese space program also uses/or this is the first docking mech used.

Summary
A representative of the Chinese manned space program stated that around the year 2000, China and Russia were engaged in technological exchanges regarding the development of a docking mechanism. Deputy Chief Designer, Huang Weifen, stated that near the end of 2009, the Chinese agency began to train astronauts on how to dock spacecraft.

Foreign sources have stated that the docking mechanism strongly resembles APAS-89/APAS-95, with one American source going as far as to call it a clone. There have been contradicting claims on the compatibility of the Chinese system with both current and future docking mechanisms on the ISS.

Specifications
Allows two craft with the same mech to join / male female versions not required. Overall dimensions, a diagram of a similar one. Electrical connections no propellants like such and such a mech has. Three large 'petals', rendevous by laser,

comments
I think if you call it an unofficial name people will ask for citations, but with just common conversational language they might not. Don't know really. Hi Craigboy, what I mean to say is, they would ask for something like 'Wang Wenbao stated "the mechanism we are unofficially calling the Chinese docking mechanism will be named at a later date"'. I do not mean to say an editor will ask you for a citation that it is indeed called the Chinese docking mechanism. sorry i was not clear on that, my comment was ambiguous.

You can use a description of an item instead of the name of the item as the title of the article, this is not a problem. it's within the naming conventions, and there are many like that, i can stumble across one or two examples and point them out to you if you would like, and i put a link to the policy on the css page for you.