<p>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?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-19T08:29:48.523Z
It depends how you define and calculate what the habitable zone is. Please provide more details or examples.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-07T14:49:22.497Z
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.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-21T15:41:52.933Z
I mean that according to this
https://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?
Sussus Amogus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-21T22:25:04.317Z
@SussusAmogus you should rewrite your question and you should highlight that link in the beginning. "NASA Goddard's Ravi Kumar Kopparapu has a [Habitable Zones Calculator page](https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~ruk15/planets/) and it cites [Habitable Zones Around Main-Sequence Stars: New Estimates](https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6674) and [Habitable Zones Around Main-Sequence Stars: Dependence on Planetary Mass](https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5292). Here is an example of a test I made using the calculator: (show your results). Based on my results, you can see that...
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-21T22:25:36.033Z
...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?*"
uhoh
<untagged>
Why are the flux limits larger for low-temperature stars?
Sussus Amogus
# Why are the flux limits larger for low-temperature stars?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-05-18)

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?

**Tags:** untagged
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It depends how you define and calculate what the habitable zone is. Please provide more details or examples.  
> **username_2**: 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.  
> **username_0**: I mean that according to this https://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?  
> **username_2**: @SussusAmogus you should rewrite your question and you should highlight that link in the beginning. "NASA Goddard's Ravi Kumar Kopparapu has a [Habitable Zones Calculator page](https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~ruk15/planets/) and it cites [Habitable Zones Around Main-Sequence Stars: New Estimates](https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6674) and [Habitable Zones Around Main-Sequence Stars: Dependence on Planetary Mass](https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.5292). Here is an example of a test I made using the calculator: (show your results). Based on my results, you can see that...  
> **username_2**: ...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?*"  

---

## 0 answers

