Talk:HE 1523-0901

Needs A Picture[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

"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]

"Second" oldest?[edit]

On 22 Dec, 109.242.25.81 (talk) changed "This makes it the oldest object yet discovered in the galaxy," to "This makes it the second oldest object yet discovered in the galaxy,". I can find no supporting statement in the citation. Can anyone clarify what makes this the second oldest, or should we edit it back? --50.41.5.211 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have reverted the change. Henry ^Flower 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was this maybe in reference to HD 140283? I got here in search of "the oldest known star", and found the information on this page a bit confusing when taking Methuselah into account. 98.194.174.9 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 140283 does beat it; I suppose you can call 1523-0901 the "oldest member of the galaxy", since HD 140283 is just passing through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.52.158 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radius[edit]

Primefac, do you know HE 1523-0901 is 37.41 Times Larger Than Our Sun? Kepler-78b (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I do now. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]