<p>Stars that are rich in metals tend to be younger stars, and they tend to be richer in all of the elements above Helium. Moreover, you should note that any star is still mostly Hydrogen and Helium.  Any other elements are much much less abundant.</p>
<p>When looking at stars, we can see the elements that are in their atmosphere from the spectrum. The star Mu Leonis  (it is the top star in the &quot;head&quot; of the lion) has a stellar classification &quot;<a href="https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/MKCool/mkcat.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">K2IIIb CN 1 Ca 1</a>&quot;, K2 means that this is an orange star, IIIb means that it is a giant star.  CN1 Ca1 means that cyanide and <em>calcium</em> are particularly prominent in its spectrum.</p>
<p>Also, there may be Calcium in the core of highly evolved stars, just not for very long.  A star that is fusing Argon to Calcium doesn't have long to live ­— about a day. So if the stellar core of Antares is getting very rich in Calcium right now, by tomorrow there will be a supernova.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-07T06:22:11.030Z
Thanks....I am also beginning to wonder if the element calcium has a known characteristic whose importance we are overlooking... Something that could be staring at us right in the face, but for certain reasons, such as our bias in investigating carbon elements exclusively for life properties, and side lining other elements...interesting to note calcium denotes an impending supernova...one day, hunh?...I also realize calcium abundance in a star may not translate to an abundance in any planets around that star. I asked a researcher at Dartmouth College about the plumes of Encedalus...no calcium.
dnatech
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-07T06:35:11.053Z
I put out recently a null hypothesis: Life origins are due to calcium apportionment by organic constructs. I am implying life started before cell walls, before staged reproduction with DNA and RNA, before ingestion or excretion, and before respiration. The organic constructs I believe were primarily proteins, perhaps embedded in phospholipids, or some other immiscible liquid. Calcium was there from the start. All the kingdoms of life on this planet utilize calcium in vital processes.
dnatech
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T07:53:37.727Z
2022-01-05T07:53:37.727Z
James K
<p>There are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium-rich_supernovae" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Calcium-rich supernovae</a> but here I'm asking about stars that one might see in the night sky.</p>
<p>I'd like to ask if there are any naked-eye (or binocular-assisted) visible stars in our Milky Way that are particularly rich in calcium?</p>
<p>Asking this question for a hypothesis I am developing, but that's outside the scope of this question.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-02T10:08:52.130Z
You mean just Ca but not other metals?
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-02T15:31:38.353Z
Although there are certainly local variations in the composition of the galaxy, the basic ingredients are fairly well mixed. See https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/16313/16685
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-03T00:11:28.250Z
I don't understand the drive-by pile-on down-voting on a new user's first question. It's unnecessary, unhelpful and *very unwelcoming.* Give the OP time to improve their question! You want how to ask a good SE question to be what new users learn first, not "this site is unwelcoming"!
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-03T11:15:58.713Z
I'm trying to say something to the effect that are there stars richer in calcium as compared to other stars...is our sun, for example, richer in calcium as compared to most other stars...
dnatech
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-03T11:18:11.243Z
Yes, I don't fully understand this format of placing questions.
dnatech
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-04T22:31:59.457Z
Hi @dnatech I've cast the fifth and final close vote. Don't worry, questions can be reopened after they are improved. If you look around this Stack Exchange site (or any of the [almost 200 other SE sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites#name)) you'll see that questions are generally asked in a well-developed state. While sites like Quora have single sentence questions, here it's generally necessary to include some explanation of the question and what the answer should include, and ideally some evidence of research.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-04T22:38:08.883Z
I've made an edit your question in order to try to make it a better fit for the site, please let me know if it looks okay, or edit further with that goal in mind. *Thanks!*
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-04T23:12:20.827Z
I actually have a positive answer to this question, I think it is answerable, so I've voted to reopen
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T07:01:29.400Z
I have casted the final reopen vote. So, now it is open. Mods can clean up the comment section.
Nilay Ghosh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T09:50:08.513Z
I am going by an adage, "Where's there is smoke, there is fire." As my moniker indicates, I have done work in the biological sciences, and as such the reason I am making this question is that calcium is more than just a vital mineral for biological systems...it is involved with channeling ions through cell membranes, signalling for protein replication, signaling for hunger, signaling for sex drive, pulsed release for trauma, staged reproduction in mitosis, and more. I would say every living organism on Earth utilizes calcium in important functions.
dnatech
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T12:48:08.483Z
Sure, calcium is very important for Life As We Know It. A huge amount of the Earth's available calcium was sequestered by ancient marine life, although some of that has been released back into the biosphere through geological activity.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T12:51:21.930Z
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements has various useful lists & graphs. It doesn't have a galactic value for Ca, but the solar system estimates are fairly close to the average expected values for stellar systems that are around the same age as the Sun. Younger systems will generally have slightly higher proportions of everything heavier than hydrogen.
PM 2Ring
<star><nucleosynthesis><elemental-abundances>
Are there any naked-eye visible stars in our Milky Way that are particularly rich in calcium? (I'm just curious)
dnatech
# Are there any naked-eye visible stars in our Milky Way that are particularly rich in calcium? (I'm just curious)

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-01-02)

There are [Calcium-rich supernovae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium-rich_supernovae) but here I'm asking about stars that one might see in the night sky.

I'd like to ask if there are any naked-eye (or binocular-assisted) visible stars in our Milky Way that are particularly rich in calcium?

Asking this question for a hypothesis I am developing, but that's outside the scope of this question.

**Tags:** star, nucleosynthesis, elemental-abundances

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You mean just Ca but not other metals?  
> **username_2**: Although there are certainly local variations in the composition of the galaxy, the basic ingredients are fairly well mixed. See https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/16313/16685  
> **username_3**: I don't understand the drive-by pile-on down-voting on a new user's first question. It's unnecessary, unhelpful and *very unwelcoming.* Give the OP time to improve their question! You want how to ask a good SE question to be what new users learn first, not "this site is unwelcoming"!  
> **username_0**: I'm trying to say something to the effect that are there stars richer in calcium as compared to other stars...is our sun, for example, richer in calcium as compared to most other stars...  
> **username_0**: Yes, I don't fully understand this format of placing questions.  
> **username_3**: Hi @username_0 I've cast the fifth and final close vote. Don't worry, questions can be reopened after they are improved. If you look around this Stack Exchange site (or any of the [almost 200 other SE sites](https://stackexchange.com/sites#name)) you'll see that questions are generally asked in a well-developed state. While sites like Quora have single sentence questions, here it's generally necessary to include some explanation of the question and what the answer should include, and ideally some evidence of research.  
> **username_3**: I've made an edit your question in order to try to make it a better fit for the site, please let me know if it looks okay, or edit further with that goal in mind. *Thanks!*  
> **username_4**: I actually have a positive answer to this question, I think it is answerable, so I've voted to reopen  
> **username_5**: I have casted the final reopen vote. So, now it is open. Mods can clean up the comment section.  
> **username_0**: I am going by an adage, "Where's there is smoke, there is fire." As my moniker indicates, I have done work in the biological sciences, and as such the reason I am making this question is that calcium is more than just a vital mineral for biological systems...it is involved with channeling ions through cell membranes, signalling for protein replication, signaling for hunger, signaling for sex drive, pulsed release for trauma, staged reproduction in mitosis, and more. I would say every living organism on Earth utilizes calcium in important functions.  
> **username_2**: Sure, calcium is very important for Life As We Know It. A huge amount of the Earth's available calcium was sequestered by ancient marine life, although some of that has been released back into the biosphere through geological activity.  
> **username_2**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements has various useful lists & graphs. It doesn't have a galactic value for Ca, but the solar system estimates are fairly close to the average expected values for stellar systems that are around the same age as the Sun. Younger systems will generally have slightly higher proportions of everything heavier than hydrogen.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2022-01-05. Score: 3

Stars that are rich in metals tend to be younger stars, and they tend to be richer in all of the elements above Helium. Moreover, you should note that any star is still mostly Hydrogen and Helium. Any other elements are much much less abundant.

When looking at stars, we can see the elements that are in their atmosphere from the spectrum. The star Mu Leonis (it is the top star in the "head" of the lion) has a stellar classification "[K2IIIb CN 1 Ca 1](https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/MKCool/mkcat.html)", K2 means that this is an orange star, IIIb means that it is a giant star. CN1 Ca1 means that cyanide and *calcium* are particularly prominent in its spectrum.

Also, there may be Calcium in the core of highly evolved stars, just not for very long. A star that is fusing Argon to Calcium doesn't have long to live ­— about a day. So if the stellar core of Antares is getting very rich in Calcium right now, by tomorrow there will be a supernova.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks....I am also beginning to wonder if the element calcium has a known characteristic whose importance we are overlooking... Something that could be staring at us right in the face, but for certain reasons, such as our bias in investigating carbon elements exclusively for life properties, and side lining other elements...interesting to note calcium denotes an impending supernova...one day, hunh?...I also realize calcium abundance in a star may not translate to an abundance in any planets around that star. I asked a researcher at Dartmouth College about the plumes of Encedalus...no calcium.  
> **username_0**: I put out recently a null hypothesis: Life origins are due to calcium apportionment by organic constructs. I am implying life started before cell walls, before staged reproduction with DNA and RNA, before ingestion or excretion, and before respiration. The organic constructs I believe were primarily proteins, perhaps embedded in phospholipids, or some other immiscible liquid. Calcium was there from the start. All the kingdoms of life on this planet utilize calcium in vital processes.  

---

