<p>As far as I know, K-type and G-type stars (among others) grow in radius as they age, eventually leading to red giant phases.</p>
<p>My question is, would a star that is about 0.66 solar masses and 0.94 solar radii simply be an old star still in the main sequence, or would this radius be considered large enough relative to its mass to indicate rapid ballooning into the red giant phase?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-26T05:22:03.043Z
different but related: [Is is possible for a main sequence star to have 0.77 solar masses yet only be 0.54 solar radii?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/41661/7982)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-26T08:21:52.427Z
Why don't you download a set of models to answer this series of increasingly specific questions?
ProfRob
<star><size><red-giant><age>
Is a star with 2/3 solar masses and 9/10 solar radii still in the main sequence?
Xi-K
# Is a star with 2/3 solar masses and 9/10 solar radii still in the main sequence?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-02-26)

As far as I know, K-type and G-type stars (among others) grow in radius as they age, eventually leading to red giant phases.

My question is, would a star that is about 0.66 solar masses and 0.94 solar radii simply be an old star still in the main sequence, or would this radius be considered large enough relative to its mass to indicate rapid ballooning into the red giant phase?

**Tags:** star, size, red-giant, age

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: different but related: [Is is possible for a main sequence star to have 0.77 solar masses yet only be 0.54 solar radii?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/41661/7982)  
> **username_2**: Why don't you download a set of models to answer this series of increasingly specific questions?  

---

## 0 answers

