Talk:HE 1523-0901: Difference between revisions
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
That should really say 0.8 Solar masses. The star is a highly evolved red giant, giving it a much larger radius than the Sun and hence making it possible to see. --[[Special:Contributions/114.76.62.26|114.76.62.26]] ([[User talk:114.76.62.26|talk]]) 10:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
That should really say 0.8 Solar masses. The star is a highly evolved red giant, giving it a much larger radius than the Sun and hence making it possible to see. --[[Special:Contributions/114.76.62.26|114.76.62.26]] ([[User talk:114.76.62.26|talk]]) 10:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
Mass and size are two very different things, hence the confusion. |
Mass and size are two very different things, hence the confusion. |
Revision as of 12:58, 1 September 2010
Needs A Picture
Article needs a pic of the star.
69.171.160.150 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Basic infobox added
I've added a basic infobox for this star, however, among the missing information would be the stellar classification. I couldn't find any reliable information on this, and perhaps it's still unknown. I could also not find any boundaries for the approximation of its distance. — Northgrove 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Discrepancy?
"HE 1523-0901 is the designation given to a red giant star," but, later in the article, we see that it's "approximately eight-tenths the size of the Sun."
A red giant that's only 1,000,000 km wide? No star so small would be visible 7,500 ly away. 68Kustom (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
That should really say 0.8 Solar masses. The star is a highly evolved red giant, giving it a much larger radius than the Sun and hence making it possible to see. --114.76.62.26 (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Mass and size are two very different things, hence the confusion.