Science desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 24[edit]

Location of Chandrayaan-3 on File:Moon_landing_sites.svg[edit]

Sbb1413 (talk · contribs) has requested that I update my diagram.

I cannot identify the location on the photograph of the moon (that I shot myself) by comparing it with http://reuters.com/graphics/INDIA-SPACE/zjvqjxbnxpx/graphic.jpg as the area is rather featureless and highly distorted due to being near the limb. Would someone be able to give its (x, y) coordinates in this thumbnail PNG, please?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is on your image. From the Reuters image, which is being used in eveyrthing from CNN to Al Jazeera, the crashed Chandrayaan-2 is in a straight line from Surveyor 1 to Surveyor 7 to the edge of your image. It appears that it is actually just over the horizon. Chandrayaan-3 is just to the right of that on the image. Then, if you make a straight line from Luna 1 to Apollo 11 and follow it to the horizon, that is the landing site of Chandrayaan-3. Again, it appears to be just over the horizon. But, I personally do not see why you couldn't place it on the edge of your image. You are using rather large circles that cover a lot of the surface. So, if it is off a tad, you still got it covered. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this image uses nearly the same moon image as you do, so you can see exactly where they placed it, which is a little further from the horizon than this image. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've updated the image as above. Does that look right? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cmglee, I haven't the chops with selenography or geometry to answer that inquiry with any degree of precision, but I did want to take the time to thank you for maintaining such an involved image for the edification of our readers: it must take a bit of work just to produce something that will only be appreciated by a niche subselection of readers, and I think your willingness to keep it current is a grand display of gnomish dedication! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliment, @Snow Rise: I'm glad to play a tiny part in the betterment of society ͡° ͜১͡° cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 20:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the body part taken from still the same after Tommy John surgery?[edit]

Wouldn't that tendon or ligament have to be replaced too for the body to have any chance of regaining full function? Why not just replace with a more resilient artificial tendon and leave the rest of the body alone? Can such a tendon be that is neither inferior to biological nor considered doping? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natural tendon grafts form much better attachments to bones than any artificial materials. As to the donor ligaments or tendons, they are either very massive and can tolerate removal of a small part or they are not considered necessary at all as with palmaris tendon. Ruslik_Zero 20:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]