Jump to content

Talk:HE 1523-0901: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 4: Line 4:


[[Special:Contributions/69.171.160.150|69.171.160.150]] ([[User talk:69.171.160.150|talk]]) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)real The
[[Special:Contributions/69.171.160.150|69.171.160.150]] ([[User talk:69.171.160.150|talk]]) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)real The



The artists renditon is very good and should be kept, but more astronomy pictures and graphs should be added to the article.
The artists renditon is very good and should be kept, but more astronomy pictures and graphs should be added to the article.

Revision as of 13:09, 1 September 2010

Needs A Picture

Article needs a pic of the star.

69.171.160.150 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)real The[reply]


The artists renditon is very good and should be kept, but more astronomy pictures and graphs should be added to the article.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Mass and size are two very different things, hence the confusion.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Also the article doesn't say 7,500 light years, it says 750 light years.

75.166.172.10 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]