Talk:Blue supergiant

pictures
Something seems amiss about the two pictures shown. If the bottom is a view of our sun from a distance of 1AU, and the sun IS already at a distance of 1AU, wouldn't the sun look.. y'know.. as it does? If that makes any sense.. MOF 04:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. Go outside to see how our sun looks at 1 AU. It looks nothing like the second picture. Ignitus 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mistake. I don't know what the correct number of AU should be, but if you look in the red supergiant page there is a picture that actually makes sense. An 8 AU view of the sun compared to a red supergiant. I estimate it's supposed to say at least 4 AU, but the author is the one to correct it and show evidence. 72.141.132.131 00:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)SomeGuyNamedDave

It was me who uploaded these pictures. They were taken from the Celestia program. Wjfox2005 22:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense, though. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * lol, then why not go to the Celestia program and tell them how that?

Unfortunately, this article suffer from the same issue as the red supergiant article in that Celestia's imagery is very simplified. I posted a better researched image of a red supergiant on the talk page there, and something similar can probably be shown here in that a blue supergiant has far more light in the ultraviolet spectrum. The problem with Celestia is that it's merely a textured sphere giving off light, and it even represent our own Sun quite poorly, if you compare with actual photos. I wish I knew some better resources that are GFDL compatible... -- Northgrove 10:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dont forget that the sun we usually see looks different because of the atmosphere. RogueNinja talk  21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Sun from 1 AU
I changed the picture to one taken of the Sun from Earth (which should be 1 AU away, right?). It certainly looks more accurate. Check the Red supergiant page for a comparision of Betelgeuse from 8 AU & the sun from 8 AU. The 8 AU picture of the sun looks closer to the older pic I replaced. Benwildeboer 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it looks better now. Thanks for changing it. Wjfox2005 13:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

- The field of view for the first picture is much more than it is for the second picture, which is misleading. 21/12/2006
 * Indeed, Image:The sun1.jpg is not that good for illustrating the article since at the very least it should be taken with a normal lens in order to simulate human field of view (I bet it's not shot with a normal lens). As such, its illustrative value is quite low and rather misleading for the casual reader. If somone is up for the challenge, then a .svg of our sky with overlays or something along those lines would more useful. 85.131.26.15 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if there would be picture of Sun taken from space (instead from Earth) to eliminate Earth's atmosphere. Perhaps from Earth's orbit... --antiXt 11:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
This article is in serious need of cleanup. In addition to the image issues, which are not resolved, it is clearly incorrect to identify blue supergiants as being spectral class O, and then to cite Rigel (spectral class B8) as a blue supergiant. I added the cleanup template to the article. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

the 1 AU problem.
since the image is shrunken any way, and would be displayed on screens of various sizes and resolution, the 1 AU comment doesn't mean anything. IMO it could be omitted and replaced with "relative size of the sun compared to" and so on. Amirber (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed images
I have removed these two images from the article. The Celestia-generated one is suspect as Celestia star radius is approximated using blackbody equations which may differ from the actual radius of the star, furthermore it is unclear as to whether such hot stars should be depicted with starspots which are (to my knowledge) phenomena associated with cooler stars. Secondly, as previously pointed out, the 1 AU comment is useless without also specifying the field-of-view of the image. The second one is a generic blue blob which does not add any value to the article at all. Icalanise (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Queer things
The progenitor for Supernova 1987A was a blue supergiant.

The only one.

Why?

Alexrybak (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not the only one. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Mashed-up sentences?
This article features 2 sentences in need of clarification or rewriting. They may result from accidental mash-up during a previous edit, although I didn't find any evidence for that in the page history.


 * They typically have 10 to 50 solar masses on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram

This is meaningless, the HRD does not directly feature stellar masses.


 * Red supergiants can become blue supergiants if their nuclear reactions slow for whatever reason and the reverse can also occur imploding into Pulsars

This sounds as if part of the sentence were missing, it is also not grammatically correct.

I did not implement the corrections though, I'm no specialist (point #1) and no native English speaker (#2).

84.97.149.19 (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Supergiant star which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Blue supergiants could come from mergers
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad2074

This new article suggests most blue supergiants are the result of stellar mergers, however I still think some BSGs (like those in the night sky) are likely in the transitional phase between the main-sequence blue dwarf and helium-fusing red supergiant. What do you think?

Stanley Joseph &#34;Stan&#34; (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)