<p>I found a <a href="http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Carr/carr.html" rel="nofollow">text</a> that suggests a Population III star can have a mass between 200 and 10^5$M_{Sun}$. There you can read:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"...This would apply for VMOs larger than $M_c$ $\approx$ 200 $M_{Sun}$. Stars larger than 150$M_{Sun}$ are termed supermassive objects (SMOs)...".</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It seems supermassive stars like R136a1 (with masses in excess 150$M_{Sun}$, the accepted upper limit for a non-pop III star) can be formed by <a href="http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/de/start/neues/detail/n/2012/august/article/astronomers-crack-mystery-of-the-monster-stars-ras-pr-1254/" rel="nofollow">the collision of massive stars</a>. </p>

<p>So, It is not difficult to imagine, say, two 150$M_{Sun}$ monsters colliding and forming a 300$M_{Sun}$ object.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-15T23:03:13.913Z
So "Stars larger than $10^5M_{Sun}$ are termed supermassive objects (SMOs), and would collapse directly to black holes due to relativistic instabilities even before nuclear burning, at least if they were metal-free.". You should add that to the answer, I suppose :)
sampathsris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-16T02:04:14.207Z
One more thing to add from the text `It must be stressed that the existence of VMOs and SMOs is entirely speculative and they are invoked primarily for the purpose of making dark matter.` So it seems that 300 times the mass of the sun is the present limit.
LDC3
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-15T19:48:20.970Z
2014-09-16T01:52:47.023Z
2014-09-16T01:52:47.023Z
Bruno Alessi
<p>We have discovered some incredibly massive stars. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1" rel="nofollow">R136a1</a>, the most massive known star is estimated to have 265 times mass as our Sun. Yet it has been burning for at least a million years, and must have shed a considerable mass as stellar wind. In its infancy, R136a1 must have been much more massive.</p>

<p>Which got me thinking about the question: What is the theoretical limit of mass that a newborn star can have?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-15T22:46:09.660Z
@Aaron: The question you linked seems to be rather vague. What do you mean by "size" when it comes to a star? Mass? Radius? :)
sampathsris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-15T23:52:40.073Z
@Krumia The accepted answer for that question interprets the question as mass.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-16T02:43:30.490Z
@HDE226868: And according to _that_ answer, maximum limit is 2 $M_{Sun}$? :D (Not saying this is not a dupe, but that question should have another answer).
sampathsris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-16T06:11:43.310Z
"The article Stars Have a Size Limit by Michael Schirber, it's about 150 Solar Masses. However, there's the Pistol Star, which is speculated to be 200 SM."
Aaron
<mass><star-formation><hypergiants>
How massive can a star be at birth?
sampathsris
# How massive can a star be at birth?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-09-15)

We have discovered some incredibly massive stars. [R136a1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1), the most massive known star is estimated to have 265 times mass as our Sun. Yet it has been burning for at least a million years, and must have shed a considerable mass as stellar wind. In its infancy, R136a1 must have been much more massive.

Which got me thinking about the question: What is the theoretical limit of mass that a newborn star can have?

**Tags:** mass, star-formation, hypergiants
> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @Aaron: The question you linked seems to be rather vague. What do you mean by "size" when it comes to a star? Mass? Radius? :)  
> **username_1**: @Krumia The accepted answer for that question interprets the question as mass.  
> **username_0**: @HDE226868: And according to _that_ answer, maximum limit is 2 $M_{Sun}$? :D (Not saying this is not a dupe, but that question should have another answer).  
> **username_2**: "The article Stars Have a Size Limit by Michael Schirber, it's about 150 Solar Masses. However, there's the Pistol Star, which is speculated to be 200 SM."  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-09-15. Score: 1

I found a [text](http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Carr/carr.html) that suggests a Population III star can have a mass between 200 and 10^5$M\_{Sun}$. There you can read:

> "...This would apply for VMOs larger than $M\_c$ $\approx$ 200 $M\_{Sun}$. Stars larger than 150$M\_{Sun}$ are termed supermassive objects (SMOs)...".

It seems supermassive stars like R136a1 (with masses in excess 150$M\_{Sun}$, the accepted upper limit for a non-pop III star) can be formed by [the collision of massive stars](http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/de/start/neues/detail/n/2012/august/article/astronomers-crack-mystery-of-the-monster-stars-ras-pr-1254/).

So, It is not difficult to imagine, say, two 150$M\_{Sun}$ monsters colliding and forming a 300$M\_{Sun}$ object.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So "Stars larger than $10^5M_{Sun}$ are termed supermassive objects (SMOs), and would collapse directly to black holes due to relativistic instabilities even before nuclear burning, at least if they were metal-free.". You should add that to the answer, I suppose :)  
> **username_4**: One more thing to add from the text `It must be stressed that the existence of VMOs and SMOs is entirely speculative and they are invoked primarily for the purpose of making dark matter.` So it seems that 300 times the mass of the sun is the present limit.  

---

