![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi,
I think I originally posted this question to the wrong group forum...so I'll try again. Please....Im not a scientist (Im a historian...but that is neither here nor there)...so please use laymans terms if possible. When are star has a larger percentage of heavier than helium elements....does that necessarily translate into celestial bodies caught in its gravity containing a higher than average chance of being composed of what we might call strategic resource elements (aluminum, magnesium, titanium, iron, etc)? For example, Barnard's Star (from what Ive read) has somewhere between 10 and 32 percent of its mass as being elements heavier than hydrogen whereas our own star has only a fraction of a percent of its mass as "metallicity". If there were celestial bodies orbiting Barnard's Star...does it necessarily translate into there being higher than average amounts of resource elements? Would Barnard III (3rd planet, for the sake of argument) be richer in iron and other elements than Earth? Thanks in advance.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model | harlod caufield | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 27th 03 09:12 PM |
Stars Rich In Heavy Metals Tend To Harbor Planets, Astronomers Report | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 21st 03 07:10 PM |