Talk:RS Ophiuchi

Artical subject
I have a question. Is this artical talking about the litteral nova that is RS Oph, or is it about the star that made it? Because the star also made Nova Oph 1898, Nova Oph 1933, Nova Oph 1958, & Nova Oph 1967. Also is the star now called RS Oph? I don't want to edit this artical further until I'm 100% sure about this subject. &mdash;  Hurricane Dev  o  n  @ 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is about the star called RS Oph, which has recurrent outbursts. It is not about one of these outbursts, only. That's least how the use of the article name should be interpreted, I think. Awolf002 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an error in the article: "..at which point a type Ia supernova will occur and destroy the star system in a spectacular explosion that will be visible from the Earth for several days, even after sunrise."

This is way off, a Type Ia supernova would not just be visible for several days if it were at the distance RS Oph is. It would be visible for something more like a year. I think the "several days" was referring to seeing it in broad daylight for several days but the article didn't clearly say that. At night it would be visible for much longer. M.O.S 23 July 2006

Supernove prediction depends on 1950ly distance, which is not sure.
The supernova theory is only valid if the star is 1950ly away. If it is 5000ly far, then another, explosion-less theory explains the observations. One would think we already have fine enough parallax rangefinders to determine the exact distance with the 2AU basis lenght available on Earth. 195.70.32.136 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Supernova theory doesn't rely on the distance at all, but on the way in which gas is transfered from one star to the other in the system and then how this gas reacts to the recurrent nova explosions. Also parallax measurements cannot reach out to these sorts of distances. Spseyres 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In the news
These sources may be useful for expanding the article, I just moved them from a pointless 'in the news' section in the article itself:
 * Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)