Re: HUBBLE WEIGHS IN ON THE HEAVIEST STARS IN THE GALAXY (STScI-PR05-05)

From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:19:32 -0700

Dear Jonathan Silverlight:

"Jonathan Silverlight"
<jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:4zJK9Jqy03LCFwe8@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
> In message <BdIXd.3911$uk7.3156@fed1read01>, "N:dlzc D:aol
> T:com (dlzc)" <N@?.D.invalid> writes
>>To the Group:
>>
>>"INBOX ASTRONOMY: NEWS ALERT" <hst-news@stsci.edu> wrote in
>>message news:422F4742.6040904@stsci.edu...
>>> EMBARGOED UNTIL: 2:00 p.m. (EST) March 9, 2005
>>>
>>> Dolores Beasley
>>> Headquarters, Washington
>>> (Phone: 202/358-1753)
>>>
>>> Donna Weaver/Don Figer
>>> Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md.
>>> (Phone: 410/338-4493/4377)
>>>
>>> PRESS RELEASE NO.: STScI-PR05-05
>>>
>>> HUBBLE WEIGHS IN ON THE HEAVIEST STARS IN THE GALAXY
>>>
>>> Astronomers have taken an important step toward establishing
>>> an
>>> upper limit to the masses of stars. Using NASA's Hubble Space
>>> Telescope, they made the first direct measurement within our
>>> Milky Way Galaxy, and concluded stars cannot get any larger
>>> than about 150 times the mass of our sun.
>>
>>... and still be visible? I wonder why this would place a
>>limit
>>on star mass... a neutron star is still a "star", no?

> The press release isn't very helpful (I'll try reading the
> paper)

Only if you'll get something out of it.

> but I'd guess it's a refinement of the old Eddington Limit - a
> star larger than a certain size is unstable because its
> radiation exceeds the strength of the gravity holding it
> together.

I'll do a little research on "Eddington Limit". Thanks for the
brilliance!

David A. Smith