Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Docking

Docking is a form of non-penetrative sexual activity between men in which the glans of one uncircumcised partner's penis is inserted into the foreskin of the other, facilitating mutual stimulation through rubbing or frottage.^[1]^[2] This practice, feasible only with intact foreskin, remains niche and is predominantly documented among men who have sex with men.^[3] It has gained prominence in scholarly discussions surrounding male neonatal circumcision, where opponents cite it as an example of sensory and functional benefits forfeited by the procedure, though such arguments often overlook broader empirical evidence on circumcision's protective effects against infections like HIV.^[1]^[2] Proponents emphasize associated health risks, including potential for pathogen transmission during close mucosal contact, despite assessments of negligible HIV risk in some contexts.^[4]^[5] These debates highlight tensions between individual sexual preferences and public health considerations, with academic sources showing a tendency to amplify rare practices like docking to bolster anti-circumcision positions amid institutional biases favoring bodily autonomy narratives.^[1]

Space Exploration and Astronautics

Spacecraft Docking Fundamentals

Spacecraft docking involves the precise joining of two free-flying vehicles in orbit through compatible mechanical interfaces, enabling the active (chaser) spacecraft to autonomously approach, align, and mate with the passive (target) spacecraft without external aids such as robotic arms. This process requires the chaser to nullify relative orbital motion, achieving near-zero velocity and attitude misalignment prior to contact. In contrast, berthing employs mechanical capture, where the incoming vehicle is grappled and maneuvered into position by the target or an assisting system, as docking demands inherent propulsion and guidance autonomy from the chaser.^[6]^[7] Central to docking are specialized mechanisms that facilitate initial soft capture, alignment correction, and rigid hard capture. Common configurations include probe-and-drogue assemblies, where an extendable probe on the chaser inserts into a conical drogue on the target, guiding alignment before latches engage to secure the connection and form a pressurized seal. These systems incorporate soft-capture elements, such as initial hooks or petals, to absorb residual motion, followed by structural latches that retract the probe and enforce tolerances for electrical, data, and fluid umbilical connections. Relative navigation during approach utilizes sensors including LIDAR for high-resolution range, bearing, and velocity measurements, supplemented by GPS-derived absolute positions to compute six-degree-of-freedom relative states with accuracies supporting sub-meter ranging at distances up to several kilometers.^[8]^[9]^[10] Orbital dynamics govern the phasing, rendezvous, and proximity operations preceding contact, modeled via Hill's equations or Clohessy-Wiltshire approximations for relative motion in low Earth orbit. The chaser must execute velocity corrections to maintain a controlled closing rate, typically under 0.1 m/s in the final phase, to mitigate collision risks from nonlinear perturbations like differential drag or thrust misalignments. Attitude synchronization ensures the docking axes align within sub-degree tolerances, preventing destructive shear forces upon impact, while positional accuracy demands sub-centimeter precision at contact to engage mechanisms without damage. These constraints arise from the high kinetic energies involved, even at low velocities, necessitating redundant fault-tolerant controls to handle uncertainties in sensor data or thruster performance.^[11]^[12]

Historical Development

The first successful docking of crewed spacecraft occurred on March 16, 1966, during NASA's Gemini VIII mission, when astronauts Neil Armstrong and David Scott manually piloted their Gemini capsule to connect with an uncrewed Agena target vehicle in Earth orbit, achieving a rigid structural link after precise rendezvous maneuvers.^[13] This demonstrated the feasibility of manual piloting for docking but highlighted early engineering challenges, including managing high structural loads during capture—up to several thousand pounds of force—and ensuring reliable sealing mechanisms to equalize cabin pressures without leaks, as misalignment could compromise atmospheric integrity.^[8] Parallel Soviet efforts in the 1960s focused on automated systems using a probe-and-drogue mechanism, where an extendable probe on the active vehicle inserted into a receiving cone on the passive one, followed by latches for hard capture; this design originated from conceptual work in 1962 and enabled Soyuz-Kosmos tests.^[14] The USSR achieved the world's first fully automatic docking on October 30, 1967, with uncrewed Kosmos 186 and Kosmos 188 spacecraft, which approached within 330 feet before radar-guided closure and probe retraction to form a sealed tunnel, addressing similar load attenuation issues through shock absorbers to prevent structural damage.^[15] International collaboration advanced docking in the 1990s with the Androgynous Peripheral Attach System (APAS), a genderless design compatible with modified probe-drogue ports, enabling the first U.S.-Russian crewed docking on June 29, 1995, when Space Shuttle Atlantis (STS-71) linked to the Mir space station's Kristall module, facilitating crew transfers and hardware exchange while distributing docking loads across 12 peripheral latches.^[16] Standardization efforts culminated in NASA's adoption of the International Docking System Standard (IDSS) in 2012, defining common interface parameters for soft capture, hard mate, and sealing to support interoperable systems among partners, building on APAS geometry for future low-Earth orbit and deep-space missions up to the early 2010s.^[17]

Modern Technologies and Challenges

The NASA Docking System (NDS), standardized post-2010 as part of the International Docking System Standard (IDSS), enables compatible interfaces for spacecraft like Boeing's Starliner and NASA's Orion, facilitating low-impact docking with the International Space Station (ISS).^[18] Complementing this, the European Space Agency's International Berthing and Docking Mechanism (IBDM) supports both berthing and docking operations, verified through ground testing at NASA's Johnson Space Center, and aligns with IDSS for interoperability in low Earth orbit and beyond. SpaceX's Crew Dragon, employing NDS-compatible autonomous docking, has completed numerous successful ISS rendezvous since its 2019 debut, including Crew-10 in March 2025 and Crew-11 in August 2025, demonstrating high reliability in proximity operations under commercial timelines.^[19] In contrast, Boeing's Starliner experienced thruster malfunctions and helium leaks during its June 2024 crewed flight test, necessitating backup systems for docking and ultimately delaying full certification, with astronauts returning via Crew Dragon after extended ISS stay.^[20]^[21] Advances in autonomous docking technologies include laser-based relative navigation and AI-driven control algorithms, enabling uncrewed operations without continuous ground intervention. Northrop Grumman's Mission Extension Vehicle-1 (MEV-1), launched in 2019, achieved the first commercial spacecraft docking in geostationary orbit with Intelsat 901 in February 2020, extending the satellite's service life through propulsion takeover and demonstrating mechanical docking precision within meters.^[22] The European Space Agency has pursued similar capabilities via CubeSat demonstrations, such as the ERMES project testing reduced-gravity autonomous maneuvers, building toward in-orbit validations for debris mitigation and servicing.^[23] These private-sector innovations highlight causal efficiencies from iterative testing, contrasting with state-led programs like NASA's Space Launch System (SLS), which faced repeated delays—Artemis II now targeted for February 2026 due to integration overruns—exacerbating costs exceeding initial projections.^[24] Persistent challenges include collision risks during proximity operations, as evidenced by Starliner's 2024 docking tensions where thruster issues nearly compromised alignment, underscoring vulnerabilities in unproven propulsion redundancy.^[25] Government program inefficiencies, such as Boeing's Starliner losses surpassing $2 billion by 2025 amid certification hurdles, reflect systemic issues in fixed-price contracts versus agile commercial approaches like SpaceX's rapid iterations.^[26] Looking ahead, standardized NDS interfaces are integral to the Artemis Lunar Gateway, with initial elements targeting launch compatibility by mid-2020s for Orion docking, enabling on-orbit servicing to address orbital debris accumulation through refueling and deorbiting missions.^[27]

Computational Chemistry and Biology

Molecular Docking Principles

Molecular docking computationally predicts the optimal binding orientation and affinity between a small-molecule ligand and a macromolecular target, such as a protein receptor, by simulating their non-covalent interactions to identify low-energy complex formations. The process relies on scoring functions that estimate the binding free energy change (ΔG), typically comprising force-field-based terms for van der Waals attractions and repulsions, electrostatic interactions between charged groups, hydrogen bonding contributions, and desolvation penalties accounting for the loss of solvation shell upon binding.^[28]^[29] These functions draw from thermodynamic principles, approximating the Gibbs free energy via empirical parametrization calibrated against experimental binding data, though they often overlook entropy changes from conformational restrictions and solvent dynamics for computational efficiency.^[30] To navigate the vast conformational and orientational search space—estimated at up to 10^6 to 10^10 possible ligand poses for a typical flexible molecule—algorithms systematically or stochastically sample translations, rotations, and torsions. Systematic approaches, such as grid-based exhaustive searches, discretize the binding site into a 3D lattice and evaluate all feasible ligand placements within defined grids, ensuring comprehensive coverage but scaling poorly with molecular flexibility due to combinatorial explosion.^[31] In contrast, stochastic methods employ probabilistic sampling, including Monte Carlo techniques that generate random perturbations followed by energy-based acceptance criteria, or genetic algorithms that evolve populations of candidate poses through mutation, crossover, and selection mimicking natural evolution, enabling efficient exploration of rugged energy landscapes at the cost of potential local minima trapping.^[32]^[33] Docking assumes either rigid-body docking, treating both ligand and receptor as inflexible to simplify calculations and focus on translational/rotational degrees of freedom, or flexible docking, permitting torsional rotations in the ligand (and sometimes side-chain adjustments in the receptor) to capture induced-fit effects rooted in quantum mechanical potential energy surfaces. Rigid docking succeeds in predicting poses with root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) < 2 Å from X-ray crystal structures in 50-75% of benchmark cases, while flexible variants enhance accuracy by accommodating conformational changes but introduce uncertainties from incomplete sampling. Empirical validation against crystallographic data reveals moderate correlation (Pearson coefficients of 0.6-0.8) between top-ranked docked poses and native bindings for rigid scenarios, underscoring the approximations' utility despite deviations from full quantum accuracy.^[34]^[35]

Methodologies and Software

Molecular docking methodologies employ search algorithms to explore ligand conformational space and binding site geometries, coupled with scoring functions to evaluate pose viability. Common search strategies include genetic algorithms, which mimic evolutionary processes to optimize ligand poses by iteratively mutating and selecting high-scoring conformations, and stochastic gradient descent variants for efficient sampling.^[36] Scoring functions typically approximate binding free energy through empirical potentials derived from known complexes or semi-physically informed terms accounting for van der Waals, electrostatic, and desolvation effects, though purely empirical heuristics often prioritize speed over causal fidelity to intermolecular forces.^[37] Prominent software suites include AutoDock, originating in the 1990s from the Scripps Research Institute, which utilizes Lamarckian genetic algorithms alongside free energy-based scoring for protein-ligand predictions.^[38] GOLD employs genetic optimization to handle ligand flexibility and partial protein mobility, enabling displacement of binding-site waters during docking.^[39] AutoDock Vina, released in 2009, enhances predecessor efficiency via a novel empirical scoring function, Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno optimization, and multithreading, achieving up to tenfold speed gains while maintaining comparable accuracy; subsequent GPU-accelerated variants like Vina-GPU further enable high-throughput screening with 20-50-fold accelerations over CPU baselines.^[40]^[41] To mitigate limitations of rigid-receptor approximations, hybrid methodologies integrate docking with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, capturing induced-fit dynamics where ligand binding elicits receptor conformational changes. These approaches refine initial docking poses through short MD trajectories, improving pose resolution for flexible systems by sampling entropy-driven adjustments absent in static models. Benchmarks like the Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions (CASF) reveal that standalone docking yields root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) errors below 2 Å for roughly 70-80% of test cases, with hybrids reducing failures in induced-fit scenarios via explicit solvent and force-field relaxation.^[42]^[43] Validation relies on datasets such as PDBbind, which curates over 20,000 protein-ligand complexes with experimental binding affinities for training and benchmarking affinity predictions. Machine learning enhancements, exemplified by RF-Score (introduced around 2010), leverage random forests to recalibrate classical scoring terms from structural descriptors, yielding root-mean-square error (RMSE) reductions of 20-30% relative to empirical baselines on core sets by emphasizing interatomic contact patterns over heuristic weights.^[44]^[37] Such data-driven refinements prioritize predictive power derived from empirical distributions while approaching first-principles accuracy through feature selection tied to physical interactions.^[45]

Applications and Limitations

Molecular docking serves primarily as a computational tool for virtual screening in drug discovery, enabling the rapid evaluation of vast chemical libraries—often exceeding one million compounds—in days or weeks, in contrast to experimental high-throughput screening that may require months or years for comparable throughput.^[46] This acceleration facilitates hit identification by predicting protein-ligand binding poses and affinities, prioritizing candidates for synthesis and testing, as demonstrated in the 2020 efforts to design inhibitors for the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), where docking screened repurposed drugs and novel scaffolds to identify leads like those advancing to clinical candidates.^[47] Such applications have contributed to empirical successes, including enrichment factors of 10-100-fold over random selection in retrospective benchmarks, though prospective hit rates vary from 1-15% depending on target and library diversity.^[48]^[49] Key limitations arise from inherent approximations in docking protocols, particularly oversimplified scoring functions that neglect conformational entropy, solvent effects, and protein flexibility, resulting in high false positive rates and unreliable affinity rankings.^[50] For instance, in blinded pose prediction challenges organized by the Drug Design Data Resource (D3R), top-ranked poses achieve success rates of approximately 50-70%, implying failure rates of 30-50% for many targets due to these omissions.^[51] Consequently, docking outputs demand rigorous experimental validation, as computational binding free energies correlate modestly with measured potencies (Pearson r ≈ 0.5-0.7), limiting standalone reliability for lead optimization.^[48] Critics highlight over-reliance on docking in academic and industrial pipelines despite persistently low hit-to-lead conversion rates, often below 1-5% from screened hits to viable preclinical candidates, attributable to unmodeled dynamics and chemical space biases favoring rigid, drug-like molecules.^[52] Emerging AI-hybrid approaches, such as DiffDock introduced in 2022, leverage diffusion models to generate more accurate poses—outperforming traditional methods on benchmarks with success rates exceeding 80% in some cross-docking scenarios—yet remain unproven at industrial scale, lacking prospective data on de novo hit progression amid computational demands and generalization risks to novel targets.^[53]^[54] These advancements underscore docking's transitional role, where causal shortcomings in physics-based modeling persist without empirical overrides.

Computing and Electronics

Docking Stations Overview

Docking stations serve as hardware expansion hubs for portable devices like laptops and tablets, facilitating connections to multiple peripherals, external displays, and power sources through a single interface cable. These units replicate desktop workstation capabilities by aggregating ports such as USB, Ethernet, HDMI, and DisplayPort into one dock, reducing cable clutter and enabling seamless transitions between mobile and stationary use.^[55]^[56] Core functionality centers on passthrough capabilities via USB-C or Thunderbolt connectors, delivering up to 100W of power to charge the host device while handling data and video signals. This includes support for multi-monitor configurations, such as dual 4K resolutions at 60Hz via combined HDMI and DisplayPort outputs, allowing users to extend or mirror displays for enhanced productivity.^[57]^[58] Compatibility hinges on standardized protocols like USB 3.1 Gen 2, which provides data transfer rates of 10 Gbps, enabling high-bandwidth peripherals without proprietary limitations found in earlier vendor-specific systems. Thunderbolt interfaces extend this by offering backward compatibility with USB-C devices, supporting up to 40 Gbps throughput while maintaining broad interoperability across operating systems.^[59]^[60]^[61]

Technical Specifications and Compatibility

Docking stations commonly incorporate HDMI and DisplayPort interfaces for video output, supporting resolutions up to 4K at 60 Hz via HDMI 2.0 or DisplayPort 1.4 standards, enabling dual-monitor configurations from a single USB-C connection.^[62] Gigabit Ethernet ports provide wired networking at speeds up to 1 Gbps, ensuring low-latency connectivity for enterprise applications.^[63] Thunderbolt 4, introduced in 2020, delivers 40 Gbps bidirectional data transfer over USB-C, with certification requiring support for daisy-chaining up to six compatible devices and guaranteed multi-display output, such as two 4K@60 Hz monitors or one 8K display.^[64] In contrast, USB4 achieves comparable peak speeds of 40 Gbps but imposes fewer mandatory requirements, often lacking native daisy-chaining and consistent multi-monitor support, leading to implementation variances across vendors.^[65] This distinction highlights engineering trade-offs: Thunderbolt 4's stricter certification enhances reliability for chained peripherals but increases certification costs and limits adoption compared to the more flexible USB4 baseline.^[66] Power management in docking stations relies on USB Power Delivery (PD) 3.0 protocols, which negotiate up to 100 W for host charging while distributing power to connected peripherals via configurable voltage profiles (e.g., 20 V at 5 A).^[67] However, exceeding the dock's total power budget in multi-device scenarios can throttle or halt delivery to the host laptop, prioritizing peripheral stability and necessitating external power adapters for high-demand setups.^[68] Interoperability issues frequently stem from driver dependencies and OS-specific behaviors; macOS, for example, often requires third-party drivers like DisplayLink for extended display functionality, which have encountered conflicts with updates such as macOS 11.5.2 or 10.13.4, resulting in undetected peripherals or limited resolutions.^[69] Windows environments exhibit fewer native hurdles but still demand firmware updates to align hardware enumeration between ecosystems, mitigating variances in USB protocol handling.^[70] These challenges underscore the need for vendor-agnostic standards, though proprietary certifications like Thunderbolt alleviate some risks at the expense of broader compatibility.^[71]

Market Evolution and Innovations

The global docking station market was valued at approximately USD 1.8 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 3.1 billion by 2033, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.5%, fueled by the expansion of hybrid work models that increase demand for seamless laptop-to-desktop transitions and multi-monitor setups.^[72] This growth trajectory aligns with broader trends in remote productivity, where docking solutions enable efficient peripheral integration without frequent hardware replacements. Alternative estimates vary, with some forecasts citing a 2022 valuation of USD 1.51 billion growing to USD 2.44 billion by 2031 at a 6.1% CAGR, underscoring consistent upward momentum driven by portable computing adoption.^[73] Innovations in 2025 introduced Thunderbolt 5 docking stations capable of bidirectional data transfers up to 80 Gbps, with a bandwidth boost mode achieving 120 Gbps for video-heavy workloads, supporting configurations like dual 8K displays at 120 Hz.^[74] Products from manufacturers such as Anker and UGREEN exemplify this shift, integrating enhanced power delivery up to 140 W alongside multiple high-speed ports to accommodate evolving professional needs.^[75] Complementing wired advancements, wireless docking protocols leveraging WiGig (IEEE 802.11ad) at 60 GHz frequencies minimize cabling by enabling high-bandwidth, low-latency connections suitable for 4K video streaming and gaming, with reported response times enabling "latency-free" performance in real-world tests.^[76] Despite these advances, rapid iteration cycles in consumer-grade docking stations exacerbate electronic waste through obsolescence, as compatibility with successive device generations prompts frequent upgrades; enterprise-oriented models counter this by prioritizing modular designs that prolong hardware lifespan and reduce disposal volumes.^[77] Proprietary ecosystems in certain vendors' docks can foster lock-in, restricting interoperability and increasing long-term costs for users tied to specific hardware lineages, though standards like USB4 and Thunderbolt mitigate this by promoting broader compatibility.^[78]

Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Practice

Docking Procedures in Animals

Docking procedures in animals refer to the surgical amputation or shortening of tails or ears, typically performed on neonates or juveniles in livestock species like sheep and select dog breeds such as Rottweilers. Tail docking entails the removal of distal caudal vertebrae, achieved through severance between vertebral articulations, often followed by vessel ligation and skin closure in older animals, though neonatal methods prioritize rapid tissue disruption.^[79] In sheep, procedures are conducted between 24 hours and two weeks of age, utilizing techniques like elastrator rings for ischemic necrosis, emasculator clamps for crushing, or hot blade cautery via heated anvil scissors that simultaneously transect and seal tissues.^[80] Guillotine-style cutters or scalpels may also sever the tail at the caudal fold.^[81] Ear cropping, confined to canine breeds, involves cosmetic otoplasty on puppies aged 6 to 12 weeks, where portions of the auricular cartilage (pinna) are excised using scissors to trim the ear flap base, followed by skin-to-skin suturing of the upper two-thirds with absorbable material like 3-0 sutures to promote erect posture.^[82]^[83] The procedure reshapes the floppy pinna by removing excess cartilage and soft tissue, with post-operative splinting often applied to maintain form during healing.^[84] These techniques trace prevalence to working animals in antiquity, with Roman practices documented for dogs to facilitate functionality in herding or hunting roles, evolving into standardized methods for livestock by the Middle Ages.^[85] In adult cases, such as equine tail docking, disarticulation between vertebrae includes dorsal skin flap suturing over ventral tissues after muscle transection.^[79] Neonatal applications in dogs and sheep favor non-sutured methods like cutters or cautery to minimize procedural complexity.^[86]^[80]

Rationale, Benefits, and Empirical Evidence

Tail docking in working dogs, such as spaniels and Hungarian pointer retrievers (HPRs), reduces the incidence of tail injuries during field activities. A 2014 survey of 2,887 working gundogs and terriers in the UK found that 13.5% of undocked dogs sustained tail injuries, with undocked spaniels and HPRs at highest risk; docking tails by one-third was projected to significantly lower this risk by preventing damage from thorns, branches, and impacts in dense cover.^[87] Another UK study reported an overall tail injury prevalence of 0.59% across breeds, with working breeds at 0.90% risk, underscoring docking's protective role in high-activity contexts.^[88] In sheep, tail docking minimizes flystrike by reducing fecal and urine staining around the breech, which attracts blowflies. Australian research since the 1930s established optimal docking lengths (e.g., to the third or fourth caudal vertebra) that prevent fly oviposition in soiled wool, with docked sheep showing lower strike rates compared to undocked cohorts in field trials.^[89] This practice also enhances hygiene by limiting matting and accumulation of dag (clumped feces-wool), which otherwise promotes bacterial growth and secondary infections in woolly breeds.^[90] Docked sheep maintain equivalent lamb mortality and production outcomes to undocked ones, indicating no sustained productivity deficits.^[91] Veterinary assessments confirm that while tail docking induces acute stress—evidenced by elevated plasma cortisol for up to 4 hours post-procedure in lambs—levels normalize without long-term welfare impairments in working or farmed animals.^[92] In herding dogs, docking mitigates tail trauma during rapid maneuvers, preserving operational efficacy without documented balance deficits, as performance data from docked working lines show no agility shortfalls relative to tail length.^[93] These outcomes support docking's utility in environments where undocked tails elevate injury or infestation risks, yielding net health gains verifiable through longitudinal injury and parasitism logs.^[80]

Controversies and Regulatory Landscape

Criticisms of tail docking in dogs center on claims of inflicting unnecessary acute pain and constituting cosmetic mutilation, with opponents arguing it serves no medical purpose and impairs natural communication and balance.^[94] Animal welfare organizations, such as those aligned with the Humane Society, assert that the procedure causes chronic phantom pain or behavioral issues, though empirical evidence for long-term pain remains limited and contested by veterinary reviews finding acute pain resolvable with analgesics.^[95] These arguments contributed to regulatory bans in Europe, stemming from the 1987 European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, which many countries ratified by the 1990s to prohibit non-therapeutic docking; for instance, tail docking for cosmetic reasons was effectively banned across the EU by 1998 through endorsements by veterinary bodies, though enforcement varies and working dog exemptions persist in some nations like the UK for specific breeds.^[96]^[97] In contrast, proponents cite empirical data supporting docking's utility in injury-prone working breeds, such as pointers and shepherds, where undocked tails face higher trauma risks from environmental hazards like thorns or machinery. A 2010 study of working gun dogs in the UK found tail injuries in 28.6% of undocked dogs versus 0% in docked cohorts, attributing reduced incidence to shorter tails avoiding entanglement.^[98] Similarly, a Swedish observational report post-ban documented elevated tail damage in German Shorthaired Pointers, suggesting docking prevents costly veterinary interventions and infections.^[99] The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) acknowledges potential welfare benefits for working dogs in high-risk activities but opposes routine cosmetic docking, emphasizing breed-specific evidence over blanket prohibitions; this stance critiques anthropomorphic welfare assumptions that prioritize human-like tail signaling over functional outcomes in utilitarian roles.^[95] U.S. regulations reflect this nuance, permitting docking for therapeutic or herding purposes without federal bans, unlike stricter European pet-focused restrictions.^[99] Regulatory shifts have unintended consequences, including incentives for unregulated procedures; in banned jurisdictions, breeders report turning to unlicensed practitioners or overseas docking, potentially increasing risks of infection or botched amputations due to lack of veterinary oversight.^[100] A 2014 Scottish analysis highlighted how bans on working dog docking could elevate overall injury rates without alternatives like protective gear proving equivalently effective.^[100] Advocates for reform argue policies should prioritize randomized controlled trials and occupational data over ideological appeals, as current bans in regions like the EU may undermine evidence-based practices for breeds evolved for labor-intensive tasks.^[98]

Maritime and Engineering Contexts

Vessel Docking Operations

Vessel docking, or berthing, entails maneuvering a ship alongside a pier or quay under its own power or with assistance, followed by securing it via mooring lines fastened to bollards. The process begins with a controlled approach, often at an angle to the berth, utilizing forward and astern engine thrust to decelerate and align the vessel, while bow and stern thrusters provide lateral control for precision in confined waters or adverse conditions such as crosswinds or currents.^[101]^[102] For smaller vessels, independent berthing may suffice, but larger ships typically require pilotage, where a licensed harbor pilot boards to direct operations based on local hydrodynamic knowledge.^[103] Thrusters enable adjustments in currents, with berthing lateral speeds ideally limited to 0.2-0.3 knots to minimize impact energy, though overall approach can manage currents up to 1-2 knots via tug support and engine modulation.^[104] Tugs, connected via lines or pushing directly, exert forces to counter drift, particularly for supertankers exceeding 300 meters in length, which mandate multiple tugs (often two or more) and docking pilots due to their momentum and limited maneuverability.^[102]^[105] Once positioned, crew deploy fenders along the hull to absorb contact forces and prevent structural damage to the vessel or quay, while lines—typically synthetic or wire ropes—are passed to shore workers and secured to bollards in a configuration including breast, bow, stern, and spring lines to resist tidal surges and wind.^[106]^[107] In commercial contexts, these operations underpin global trade logistics, with UNCTAD data indicating over 500,000 annual port calls by container ships alone in recent years, reflecting the scale of berthing events across major ports handling diverse cargo volumes.^[108] Logistical coordination, including VHF communication with port control and pre-berthing checks for line strength (often rated to withstand 20-50 tons per line), ensures stability against environmental forces, though independent berthing without tugs remains feasible for vessels under 150 meters in favorable conditions.^[101]^[109]

Engineering and Safety Considerations

Docking infrastructure in maritime engineering typically employs pile-supported designs to accommodate heavy vessel loads, with steel or concrete piles driven into the seabed providing foundational stability. These structures are engineered to support deadweights exceeding 10,000 tons, as seen in marine terminals where steel pipe piles withstand combined axial and lateral cyclic loading from berthed ships.^[110] Corrosion resistance is achieved through marine-grade materials such as coated carbon steel pipes or stainless steel variants, which mitigate degradation in saline environments, supplemented by protective measures like HDPE sleeves on anchor piles.^[111]^[112] Safety protocols emphasize collision avoidance through integrated radar and Automatic Identification System (AIS) technologies, which enable real-time tracking of vessel positions and dynamic risk assessment during approach and berthing.^[113]^[114] Data from maritime accident analyses indicate that human error contributes to 75-96% of incidents, including those in port areas, underscoring operator judgment over inherent design flaws as the primary causal factor rather than systemic engineering failures.^[115]^[116] In 2022, ports reported at least 2,400 incidents, with approximately half occurring within terminals, often linked to navigational miscalculations during docking.^[117] Recent innovations include automated mooring systems utilizing vacuum pads, which secure vessels via suction against quay walls, eliminating traditional rope handling and thereby reducing crew exposure to hazards like line snaps or falls.^[118]^[119] These systems achieve mooring and release in seconds, compared to minutes or hours with manual methods, while compensating for ship motions in real time to maintain stability and cut overall berthing duration by up to 50% in operational trials.^[120]^[121] Such technologies enhance risk management by minimizing human intervention in high-stress phases, with empirical evidence showing improved efficiency and safety in ports adopting them.^[122]

References

[1]
The spectre of docking in circumcision debates - Sage Journals
This articles considers the ongoing penile circumcision debates by focusing on the deployment of 'docking,' a sexual practice between men.
[2]
Commentary: Do the Benefits of Male Circumcision Outweigh ... - NIH
... sexual activities, such as “docking,” that require the male homosexual partner to be uncircumcised. Earp assumes that benefits of circumcision do not begin ...
[3]
The spectre of docking in circumcision debates - ResearchGate
Oct 16, 2025 · This articles considers the ongoing penile circumcision debates by focusing on the deployment of 'docking,' a sexual practice between men.Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
[4]
Docking? - TheBody
Dec 20, 2017 · The risk of docking, ie, covering a partner penis with one's foreskin and rubbing the two together, is considered to be a negligible risk for HIV transmission.Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
[5]
Critical evaluation of unscientific arguments disparaging affirmative ...
It cites a sexually explicit website that promotes foreskin use in sexual activities such as “docking”, engaged in by some men who have sex with men. The ...
[6]
[PDF] NASA's New Direct Electric Docking System Supporting ISS and ...
NASA makes a distinction between docking and berthing operations. Docking is defined as the process of connecting two spacecraft without external assistance.
[7]
Spacecraft Docking and Berthing—What's the Difference
Nov 26, 2018 · Docking: The spacecraft can maneuver and attach to the station by itself. The Russian Soyuz and Progress vehicles can do this.
[8]
[PDF] ISS Interface Mechanisms and their Heritage
Docking was accomplished by maneuvering the probe into the cone shaped drogue. The cone shape guided the probe tip to the apex of the cone, where three capture ...
[9]
[PDF] Capture Latch Assembly for the NASA Docking System
The Capture Latch maintains the connection between space vehicles during initial contact, vehicle alignment, and vehicle hard capture. Once hard capture is ...
[10]
[PDF] A Survey of LIDAR Technology and its Use in Spacecraft Relative ...
This paper provides a survey of modern LIght Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) sensors from a perspective of how they can be used for spacecraft relative ...
[11]
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1029779/FULLTEXT02.pdf
[12]
[PDF] (Preprint) AAS 23-149 AUTONOMOUS GUIDANCE NAVIGATION ...
This paper shows how the required cm-level accurate alignment at. 40 meters separation in low earth orbit can be met safely through a novel GNC architecture ...
[13]
March 16, 1966: Gemini's First Docking of Two Spacecraft in Earth ...
Mar 16, 2016 · On March 16, 1966, command pilot Neil Armstrong and pilot David Scott successfully docked their Gemini VIII spacecraft with the Agena target vehicle.
[14]
Docking systems - RussianSpaceWeb.com
Jul 19, 2025 · The origins of the Soviet docking system were laid in a March 1962 document entitled "A complex of spacecraft assembly in the orbit of the Earth ...
[15]
50 Years Ago: The First Automatic Docking in Space - NASA
Oct 19, 2017 · On October 30, 1967, the Soviet Union accomplished the first automatic docking in space. Mastering docking was an essential step in the development of both ...Missing: 1960s | Show results with:1960s
[16]
Space Station 20th: STS-71, First Shuttle-Mir Docking - NASA
Jun 29, 2020 · Right: The APAS-95 installed on the Shuttle's ODS. The Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System (APAS) used to physically link the Shuttle ...Missing: Attach | Show results with:Attach
[17]
Enabling Exploration Through Docking Standards
May 22, 2012 · This paper provides an overview of the key attributes of the IDSS, an overview of the NASA Docking System (NDS), and the plans for updating the ...
[18]
[PDF] NASA Docking System (NDS) Interface Definitions Document (IDD)
Dec 6, 2013 · The contents of this document define the integrated performance and interface design for NASA. Docking System (NDS) Block 1 and the ...
[19]
International Berthing and Docking Mechanism - Wikipedia
The IBDM is designed to be compatible with the International Docking System ... system has been verified at the certified SDTS docking test facility at NASA JSC.Missing: NDS adoption
[20]
Crew-11 Docks to Station Aboard SpaceX Dragon - NASA
Aug 2, 2025 · The International Space Station is viewed from the SpaceX Dragon during its approach carrying four NASA SpaceX Crew-11 members. NASA+. NASA ...Missing: successful | Show results with:successful
[21]
What went wrong with Boeing's spaceship? - NBC News
Sep 5, 2024 · The Starliner capsule faced two issues: one with a set of thrusters and the other involving helium leaks in the vehicle's propulsion system.
[22]
NASA delays return of Boeing Starliner for more technical checks
Jun 22, 2024 · NASA officials have said they want to better understand the cause of the thruster failures, valve issue and helium leaks before Starliner begins ...
[23]
Historic First Docking of Mission Extension Vehicle with Intelsat 901 ...
Feb 26, 2020 · MEV-1 was designed and built at the Northrop Grumman's Dulles, Virginia, facility and utilizes a low-risk mechanical docking system that ...
[24]
Autonomous Docking Manoeuvre Testing in the Framework of the ...
Jan 24, 2025 · ERMES is a student project, which aimed at testing an autonomous docking manoeuvre between two free-flying CubeSats mock-ups in a reduced gravity environment.
[25]
Artemis: Nasa delays mission to send astronauts around Moon - BBC
Dec 5, 2024 · The plan had been to send astronauts around the Moon but not land in September 2025. The date had already slipped once before, from November of ...
[26]
NASA astronaut reveals they nearly failed to dock Boeing Starliner ...
Apr 4, 2025 · NASA astronauts revealed that the Boeing Starliner almost failed to dock to the International Space station on June 5, 2024.Missing: incidents | Show results with:incidents
[27]
Boeing Starliner Losses Top $2B—And Counting - Payload Space
Feb 5, 2025 · Boeing said it lost $523M on Starliner in 2024 ... Starliner's first uncrewed test flight failed in December 2019 due to a critical software error ...
[28]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3151162/
[29]
Lunar Gateway - Wikipedia
The project is expected to play a major role in the Artemis program after 2026. NASA's Budget for FY 2025 included $817.7 million for the project. While the ...Missing: interfaces | Show results with:interfaces
[30]
Molecular Docking: A powerful approach for structure-based drug ...
In this review, we present a brief introduction of the available molecular docking methods, and their development and applications in drug discovery.
[31]
A comprehensive survey of scoring functions for protein docking ...
Jan 22, 2025 · It includes terms for Van der Waals forces, electrostatic interactions, and desolvation energy. In addition to these energetic ...
[32]
Empirical Scoring Functions for Structure-Based Virtual Screening
Sep 24, 2018 · Empirical scoring functions have implemented specific terms accounting for intermolecular interactions, such as van der Waals and electrostatic ...
[33]
Molecular docking - Bio-protocol
Empirical scoring functions: These functions are the sum of various empirical energy terms such as van der Waals, electrostatic, hydrogen bond, desolvation, ...
[34]
[PDF] Ten quick tips to perform meaningful and~reproducible molecular ...
May 9, 2025 · Metropolis. Monte Carlo, and Genetic algorithm are popular stochastic search methods that are used as conformational search tools in docking ...
[35]
[PDF] Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide ...
Docking is a term used for computational schemes that attempt to find the “best” matching between two mol- ecules: a receptor and a ligand. The molecular ...
[36]
Protein Flexibility in Docking and Surface Mapping - PMC - NIH
These rigid docking efforts typically show the best performance rates between 50 and 75%, while fully flexible docking methods can enhance pose prediction up ...
[37]
[PDF] The Effects of Ligand and Protein Flexibility on Molecular Docking ...
Docking accuracy decreases substantially for ligands with eight or more rotatable bonds. Protein flexibility also influences docking accuracy.
[38]
Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking
GOLD is an automated ligand docking program that uses a genetic algorithm to explore the full range of ligand conformational flexibility.
[39]
Machine‐learning scoring functions to improve structure‐based ...
Aug 28, 2015 · ... Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) between predicted and measured binding affinity. ... 18 This machine‐learning SF, RF‐Score, was the first to ...
[40]
AutoDock
AutoDock is a suite of automated docking tools. It is designed to predict how small molecules, such as substrates or drug candidates, bind to a receptor of ...Resources · Download AutoDock4 · AutoDock Zn · Covalent Docking
[41]
Protein–Ligand Docking with GOLD - CCDC
GOLD stands for Genetic Optimization for Ligand Docking. It is a software based on a genetic algorithm, for docking flexible ligands into protein binding sites.
[42]
AutoDock Vina
AutoDock Vina is an open-source program for doing molecular docking. It was originally designed and implemented by Dr. Oleg Trott in the Molecular Graphics Lab.Tutorial · Manual · Downloads · AutoDock Suite
[43]
Accelerating AutoDock Vina with GPUs - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
May 9, 2022 · Large benchmark tests show that Vina-GPU reaches an average of 21-fold and a maximum of 50-fold docking acceleration against the original ...
[44]
Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated ...
In our CASF-2013 benchmark, all scoring functions were tested in four different aspects, i.e., scoring power, ranking power, docking power, and screening power.
[45]
Hybrid Steered Molecular Dynamics-Docking - PubMed Central - NIH
Here we present a novel hybrid method for accurate and precise affinity rank-ordering of ligands against a challenging enzyme drug target, which employs a ...
[46]
PDBbind
This version provides binding affinity data for a total of 33,653 biomolecular complexes in PDB, including protein-ligand (27,385), protein-protein (4,594), ...Missing: prediction | Show results with:prediction
[47]
Classical scoring functions for docking are unable to exploit large ...
Mar 14, 2019 · Thus, just about 400 training complexes with the most dissimilar ligands were required by RF-Score-v3 and XGB-Score to achieve a RMSE value ...
[48]
Molecular docking-based computational platform for high ... - NIH
Molecular docking is the basis for determining the mechanism of binding of drugs to targets and is very important for receptor-based virtual screening. The ...
[49]
A molecular docking study of potential inhibitors and repurposed ...
Apr 20, 2021 · We have performed a molecular docking study to define possible inhibitor candidates against SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease enzyme.
[50]
Empirical Scoring Functions for Structure-Based Virtual Screening
This paper will cover some recent successful applications and methodological advances, including strategies to explore the ligand entropy and solvent effects.
[51]
Dramatically improving hit rates with a modern virtual screening ...
Schrödinger's scientists used cutting-edge virtual screening with large-scale docking, achieving a double-digit hit rate across diverse protein targets.Missing: conversion | Show results with:conversion
[52]
Distinguishing Binders from False Positives by Free Energy ...
Sep 5, 2014 · However, the accuracy of docking calculations can be limited by factors such as the neglect of protein reorganization in the scoring function; ...
[53]
Improving Binding Mode and Binding Affinity Predictions of Docking ...
... challenges in molecular docking such as protein flexibility and imperfect scoring functions. For example, for one of the D3R targets, human HSP90, there are ...
[54]
Hit Identification and Optimization in Virtual Screening
Successful examples of virtual screening (VS) using ligand- or structure-based strategies have been frequently reported.
[55]
AI in Drug Discovery 2022 - A Highly Opinionated Literature Review
Jan 3, 2023 · The search process in DiffDock is guided by a novel confidence score that enables a choice between multiple poses. DiffDock: Diffusion Steps, ...
[56]
Computational Care | Science | AAAS
Dec 6, 2024 · Not only is DiffDock significantly more accurate than previous approaches to traditional docking benchmarks, thanks to its ability to reason at ...
[57]
https://www.asus.com/accessories/docks-dongles-and-cable/asus-docks-dongles-and-cable/asus-triple-display-usb-c-dock-dc300/
[58]
What Is a Laptop Docking Station? - Belkin
Aug 21, 2024 · Docking stations are hardware devices with multiple connections and ports that allow users to connect to laptops or desktops via a single cable.
[59]
ASUS Triple Display USB-C Dock DC300｜Docks Dongles and Cable
Enjoy seamless 4K@ 60Hz output via HDMI® 2.1, fast data transfer through USB 3.2 Gen1 ports, and up to 100W Power Delivery input to keep your laptop powered ...
[60]
The Best Laptop Docking Stations to Supercharge Your Workstation
Jul 11, 2025 · Using the included two HDMI ports and the DisplayPort, this little device can power three 1080p displays or two 4K displays—all at 60 Hz. It ...<|separator|>
[61]
https://plugable.com/blogs/news/a-brief-history-of-usb-and-docking-stations
[62]
Thunderbolt™ 3 Dock with USB-C Laptop Compatibility
A plug-and-play Thunderbolt 3 docking station that intelligently adapts to your Thunderbolt 3 or USB-C (USB 3.1 Gen 1 and Gen 2) laptop offering optimal ...
[63]
https://www.amazon.com/Plugable-Display-DisplayPort-Ethernet-Vertical/dp/B08B6CZ29Q
[64]
https://www.cablematters.com/Blog/USB-C/thunderbolt4-vs-USB4-whats-the-difference
[65]
Amazon.com: Plugable Dual DisplayPort & HDMI Docking Station
Flexible Expandability: This versatile laptop docking station dual monitor setup includes dual HDMI and DisplayPort outputs, Gigabit Ethernet, audio jack, and ...
[66]
https://www.benq.com/en-us/knowledge-center/knowledge/what-is-usb4-thunderbolt4-usbc.html
[67]
https://resources.altium.com/p/usb-power-delivery-your-next-project
[68]
USB4 vs Thunderbolt 4: Understanding the differences | BenQ US
Mar 6, 2025 · Compatibility between USB4 and Thunderbolt 4: most Thunderbolt 4 devices are fully compatible with USB4. For example, on a MacBook with ...Missing: limitations | Show results with:limitations
[69]
USB PD: Power Delivery for Your Next Project - Altium Resources
Jul 8, 2020 · USB PD is a standard for power delivery over USB, allowing up to 100W, multiple voltages, and bi-directional current flow.
[70]
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254882085
[71]
MacOS 11.5.2 not compatible with latest drivers - DisplayLink Forum
Aug 22, 2021 · Default MacOS 11.5.2 not compatible with latest drivers. I recently purchased the Dell display link docking station usb 3.0 D3100 to hook up ...
[72]
Docking Station Issues - Apple Support Community
May 22, 2023 · 1. Check compatibility with your Mac Book Pro. 2. Update drivers or firmware for the docking station. 3. Ensure all cable connections are secure ...Docking station drivers not starting on Windows bootUpdating to OS 15.1 Docking Station Display No Longer WorksMore results from discussions.apple.com
[73]
Thinkpad-Hybrid-USB-C-with-USB-A-Dock-compatibility-with ...
Mar 16, 2022 · Officially ThinkPad docking stations are not compatible with a MacBook, but they still may work with some limitations.
[74]
Docking Station Market Size, Share | CAGR of 5.5%
The Global Docking Station Market is estimated to be worth USD 1.8 billion in 2023 and projected to be valued at USD 3.1 billion in 2033.Report Overview · Key Takeaways · Product Type Analysis · Distribution Channel
[75]
Docking Station Market Size, Share & Growth Report, 2030
The global docking station market size was estimated at USD 1.51 billion in 2022 and is projected to reach USD 2.44 billion by 2031, growing at a CAGR of 6.1% ...
[76]
https://www.asus.com/accessories/docks-dongles-and-cable/asus-docks-dongles-and-cable/asus-wigig-display-dock/
[77]
Anker Prime TB5 Docking Station, 14-in-1 Thunderbolt 5 Dock with ...
Anker Prime TB5 Docking Station, 14-in-1 Thunderbolt 5 Dock with 120Gbps Max Transfer, Thunderbolt Dock with 140W Max Charging, Cooling System, Ambient ...
[78]
ASUS WiGig Display Dock｜Docks Dongles and Cable｜ASUS Global
With its ultrafast 802.11ad 60GHz WiFi technology, WiGig® Display Dock gives you supersmooth, latency-free gameplay1, with no annoying cables. Cinema-like ...
[79]
https://open.lib.umn.edu/largeanimalsurgery/chapter/how-to-tail-dock/
[80]
The Weakest Link: How To Avoid Aerospace And Tech Vendor Lock-In
Jan 18, 2024 · Tomorrow's aerospace leaders will be those who view external vendor technologies through the lens of open integration from the outset.
[81]
How to – Tail Dock – Adult – Large Animal Surgery
Tail docking involves disarticulating between vertebrae, making skin incisions, ligating vessels, transecting muscles, and then suturing the dorsal flap to the ...
[82]
[PDF] Tail Docking of Lambs - American Veterinary Medical Association
Jul 15, 2014 · Hot blade—The hot blade method involves severing the tail and cauterizing it, using a heated anvil scissor docking iron. The cut end of the ...
[83]
[DOC] Tail Docking of Sheep
Methods of docking: Docking is accomplished by several methods including rubber rings (elastrator), hot iron cautery, emasculator, or removal with a scalpel or ...
[84]
[PDF] Ear cropping in dogs - American Veterinary Medical Association
Aug 30, 2024 · Ear cropping is a cosmetic procedure where a dog's ears are reduced to modify their shape, done on dogs 6-12 weeks old, with potential negative ...
[85]
[PPT] EAR CROPPING
The auricle ear cartilage is trimmed with scissors at the base of ear flap. The upper 2/3 of ear flap is closed skin to skin with simple continuous suture 3-0 ...
[86]
Fort Worth Ear Cropping - South Meadow Animal Clinic
Ear cropping is a veterinary surgical procedure called cosmetic otoplasty. The surgery removes part of all of a puppy's auricles or pinnae.
[87]
Dr. Bonnie Franklin: History of Dog Tail Docking, and the Long and ...
Oct 11, 2022 · Dog tail docking started with Romans, then for fighting, to avoid taxes, and for working dogs, and to prevent injuries, and for status symbol.
[88]
Tail Docking in Dogs - PetMD
Mar 25, 2024 · Tail docking is the amputation of part of a dog's tail for cosmetic reasons, done without anesthesia on puppies, and is considered outdated.Missing: caudal | Show results with:caudal
[89]
Survey of tail injuries sustained by working gundogs and terriers in ...
May 3, 2014 · 13.5% of working dogs had tail injuries. Undocked spaniels and HPRs had the highest risk. Docking by one-third would decrease risk.
[90]
The prevalence of tail injuries in working and non-working breed ...
May 3, 2014 · The overall prevalence of tail injuries was 0.59%. Working breeds had 0.90% and were at greater risk than non-working breeds. Spaniels after ...
[91]
Measuring Sheep Tails: A Preliminary Study Using Length (Mm ...
Mar 7, 2023 · Research into the optimal length to dock tails to prevent flystrike was conducted in Australia from the 1930s. The outcome of this research was ...
[92]
A Complete Guide to Tail Docking in Sheep - Vet Verified
Oct 13, 2025 · Docking reduces faecal contamination and therefore the risk of flystrike, especially in breeds with dense wool around the breech area. Other ...Missing: matting | Show results with:matting
[93]
The welfare of docking and castrating lambs
Research has shown that docking protects sheep and lambs from fly strike, while having no effect on lamb mortality and production.
[94]
Effects of tail docking and castration on behaviour and plasma ...
Cortisol concentrations also increase in lambs in response to surgical tail docking, and remain elevated for up to 4 h after the procedure (Lester et al., 1991; ...
[95]
Tail docking in dogs: A review of the issues - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · Docking the tails of HPRs and spaniels by one-third would significantly decrease the risk of tail injury sustained while working in these breeds ...
[96]
Tail Docking and Ear Cropping Dogs: Public Awareness and ... - NIH
Jun 27, 2016 · The aim of this project was to: 1) assess public awareness of tail docking and ear cropping, 2) determine whether physical alteration of a dog ...
[97]
[PDF] Tail docking of dogs - American Veterinary Medical Association
Nov 14, 2024 · Diesel et al18 reported that working dogs (predominantly gundogs) were not at significantly greater risk of tail injury than non-working dogs, ...
[98]
Tail docking and ear cropping in dogs: a short review of laws and ...
After tail docking was banned in the European Union in 1998, the ban was proposed and endorsed by the World Veterinary Association and the World Organisation ...
[99]
The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals and tail ...
In addition, four European States have prohibited these operations, even though they did not ratify the Convention. These policy positions agree with both the ...
[100]
[PDF] Canine Tail Docking - Independent Report
This report addresses if tail docking causes pain, if it causes harm if not done by a vet, different docking methods, and therapeutic/non-therapeutic purposes.
[101]
Canine tail docking FAQ | American Veterinary Medical Association
In the largest study to date on tail injuries in dogs the incidence was 0.23% and it was calculated that approximately 500 dogs need to be docked to prevent one ...
[102]
Tail docking benefits working dogs, says study - BBC News
Apr 5, 2014 · Docking the tails of working dogs by a third while they are puppies could significantly decrease their risk of injury, according to research.<|separator|>
[103]
Ship Berthing Guide: With Tugs vs Without Tug Assistance
The choice between tug-assisted and independent berthing depends on vessel characteristics, port conditions, and environmental factors.
[104]
Ship Handling - Using Tugs For Manoeuvring A Ship - Marine Insight
Jan 2, 2021 · Tugs are commonly used for berthing and unberthing ships. Let's examine the most common maneuvers involving tugs and discuss their usage.
[105]
Ship Berthing Techniques and Safety Tips for Masters - Marine Public
Effective ship berthing strategies covering wind, currents, tugs, and pilotage to ensure safe and efficient docking and mooring for maritime masters.
[106]
Effect of Current/tidal stream | ShipHandling | Tidal ports
Normally ports have criteria for lateral speed to be kept below 0.3 kts or 0.2 kts (15cm/sec to 10 cm/sec) based on berthing energy calculation while coming ...
[107]
[PDF] GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VESSELS TRANSITING ...
Feb 15, 2021 · All vessels should be dispatched with a minimum of two tugs except that one tug may be dispatched to a vessel with a 4% Bow Thruster. SEATTLE - ...
[108]
Different Types of Marine Fenders and Their Applications
Nov 16, 2024 · Marine fenders are crucial for protecting vessels, docks, and port infrastructure from damage caused by impacts during mooring and berthing operations.
[109]
Mooring Bollards Types and Applications
Mar 20, 2021 · Marine bollards, also known as mooring bollards, are highly stable and provide secured tie-up points for mooring lines.
[110]
Review of Maritime Transport 2024 | UN Trade and Development ...
Oct 22, 2024 · A record of almost 250,000 port calls by container ships in the second half of 2023 were driven by growing trade and longer routes, causing some ...
[111]
[PDF] Berthing - Maritime Safety Innovation Lab LLC
When berthing with a bow thruster, a large ship may need a tug to control the ship's stern. Manoeuvring. • Avoid high forward speed when: - working with tugs. - ...
[112]
Residual Axial & Lateral Load Carrying Capacity of Pile Supported ...
Jul 21, 2023 · The intent of this project is to evaluate the performance of the in-ground hinge of steel pipe piles under lateral cyclic loading and axial loading.
[113]
Application of Steel Pipes in Marine Construction
Oct 22, 2021 · To minimize the impact of corrosion, marine-grade steel pipes are preferred such as stainless steel, duplex steel coated carbon pipes, and hot- ...Missing: maritime | Show results with:maritime
[114]
[PDF] Marine Timber Piling
Marine corrosion protection for steel floating dock anchor piles shall be provided via HDPE pile sleeves or Owner-approved equivalent. 2. HDPE sleeves shall ...Missing: maritime | Show results with:maritime
[115]
Decoding the Arsenal of Ship Collision Avoidance Systems - Orca AI
Jan 8, 2024 · For example, using AIS data alongside radar can improve target identification and tracking, significantly reducing the likelihood of maritime ...Missing: docking | Show results with:docking
[116]
Automatic collision avoidance for increased safety at sea - Anschuetz
Jul 29, 2025 · The analysis uses AIS and radar data, along with information from the ship itself. Data quality is factored into the risk assessment as well.Missing: docking statistics
[117]
Human Error at Sea: Why 96% of Maritime Accidents Happen
Human error, including fatigue, poor communication, and inadequate training, accounts for 75-96% of maritime accidents.Missing: docking | Show results with:docking
[118]
[PDF] Identifying the Most Probable Human Errors Influencing Maritime ...
Dec 22, 2022 · For example, studies [4–6] show that around 80% of maritime accidents are caused by human error, or at least have a connection with human error.
[119]
The Risk of Maritime Incidents in Ports and Terminals
Sep 21, 2023 · According to data from 2022, there were at least 2,400 incidents in maritime ports and terminals. Around 50% of those incidents occurred inside ...Missing: docking percentage
[120]
MoorMaster™ NxG Automated Vacuum Mooring. A New Generation.
MoorMaster eliminates the need for hazardous mooring lines with automated vacuum pads that moor and release vessels in seconds, at the push of a button.Missing: crew | Show results with:crew
[121]
A Review of Progress and Applications of Automated Vacuum ...
Aug 8, 2022 · The automated vacuum mooring system can compensate for the movement of the ship in real time and automatically adjust the position of the ship.
[122]
(PDF) Automated Mooring Systems - ResearchGate
Jul 31, 2025 · This paper explores the feasibility of existing automated mooring systems for short-sea container ships and deep-sea bulk ships.
[123]
[PDF] The modern port automate the mooring handling
Large vacuum pads instead of mooring lines. 20t holding power. 1400 x 1900 mm ... ▫ Reduction of SHIP CREW. ▫ Faster TURNAROUND TIME. ▫ Less rope ...
[124]
[PDF] Automated Mooring for Ships
This information paper provides an insight into the in- herent risks of conventional mooring, and reviews how automated mooring and associated technologies ...