Talk:Tarantula Nebula

Tarantula Nebula

this dose not have a lot of info

R136a wrong reference

The reference to R136a should be to R136, which is the term used in the cited reference #3. This is doubly unfortunate since the information in article R136a also applies only to R136. R136 is called a super star cluster in [1].

This reference [2] explains how R136 is the centre of 30 Doradus (another name for the Tarantula Nebula) and R136a is one of several components of R136.

I don't think a separate article on the component R136a is warranted, rather that R136 could mention it with references.

So I've gone ahead and changed the reference. Puzl bustr (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed overlapping text and piccy

I cut-and-pasted the pictures, starting from the overlapping one, to put them after the overlapping text. Puzl bustr (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected diameter reference

I corrected the diameter reference for R136 using a more precise reference. The previously given diameter was that of R136a, the central blob. I think the original reference, which is much more general and not talking just about R136, actually made a mistake, confusing R136 and R136a, as mentioned above. The R136 article has a diagram giving this distance also. The reference I gave stated that 8" was 2 parsec in the picture, which was 35" by 35", hence (2 parsec being about 7 light years) the diameter I gave was 35 light years. It's only approximate, of course.Puzl bustr (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

VFTS 682

With VFTS 682 determined to have 150 solar masses, it'd be a good time to expand the info here , and/or, create an article about this star.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/ESO_VLT_Finds_a_Brilliant_but_Solitary_Superstar_999.html

65.94.44.141 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Properties box: diameter of nebula

While I'm aware that the diameter of nebulas are somewhat difficult to define, different values should not be off by as much as a factor of two or more. The radius is given as 300ly, the distance as 160kly. An object with the diameter of 600ly at that distance has apparent dimensions of 13 arcminutes. Yet the given apparent dimensions are larger by a factor of two to three. So either the apparent dimensions, or the radius, as given, is wrong. Somebody can look into this?WikiPidi (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)