When calculating the habitable zone of a star, the minimum and maximum stellar flux limits compared to Earth seem to be larger for stars with lower temperatures. Why is that?
7
-
4$\begingroup$ With no worldbuilding context given, this appears to be a question better asked on either the Astronomy or Physics Stack Exchange sites. $\endgroup$– KerrAvon2055Commented May 19 at 1:27
-
$\begingroup$ I agree with the Vote To Close and repost suggestion. I would suggest sharing whatever formula or web calculator you've used when you repost. I'm 90% confident that your assertion is correct and that it's because of emission spectra (colder stars emit more IR light per unit luminosity) and absorption coefficients for habitable atmospheres (CO2 and H2O are optically thick to IR), but that also means that I'm 10% confident that I don't know what I'm talking about. $\endgroup$– g sCommented May 19 at 6:59
-
1$\begingroup$ It depends how you define and calculate what the habitable zone is. Please provide more details or examples. $\endgroup$– ProfRobCommented May 19 at 8:29
-
$\begingroup$ Where does "When calculating the habitable zone of a star, the minimum and maximum stellar flux limits compared to Earth seem to be larger for stars with lower temperatures" come from? If you can cite the source and provide some context it will help with answers. $\endgroup$– uhohCommented Jun 7 at 14:49
-
$\begingroup$ I mean that according to this personal.ems.psu.edu/~ruk15/planets It seems if the luminosity of a star remains the same, the habitable zone would be further out if the start had a lower temperature and closer in if the star had a higher temperature, if the luminosity stays the exact same. Why is that? $\endgroup$– Sussus AmogusCommented Jun 21 at 15:41
|
Show 2 more comments