<p>We so far have a sample size of 1. We know that a largish star, with a surface temperature at about 4.5 billion years of 5800K can be stable enough to support life for long enough for intelligence to evolve. We are fairly sure that very large stars don't last long enough. </p>

<p>With only one data point to extrapolate there is a tendency to think that stars that are like the sun offer the best environment for life. We are fairly sure that very large stars don't last long enough. It seems reasonable to exclude highly variable stars, or ones whose outbursts would strip the atmosphere from any planet. Intuitively these would seem to be less likely sites for life. But there is no strong evidence in the form of multiple discoveries of extra-terrestrial life to support this.</p>

<p>In short we don't know what stars can support life.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-10T13:07:41.967Z
Note that the question has been edited since I wrote this answer
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-10T09:21:02.483Z
2018-06-10T09:21:02.483Z
James K
<p>Certainly all stars have enough energy for a planet to host life. But a more magnetically active star is not preferred because solar ejection could strip planets of their atmosphere. What's the right balance?</p>

<p><strong><em>Which stellar category of a star is suitable for hosting life excluding G2V class (our Sun's category)?</em></strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-10T11:06:20.543Z
You need to ask the inverse question. What types of star do we know are hostile to life (like ours)?
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-10T14:40:33.243Z
O and K plus. Cepheids and other major variable or flare stars are out too.
Wayfaring Stranger
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-10T23:54:37.853Z
Having edited your question title, you've now created an obvious contradiction between the title "What types of star do we know are hostile to life?" and the content in bold "Which stellar category of a star is suitable for hosting life?" And you've accepted James K's answer to your original question, but Astronomy SE readers who see your current question title will not find the answer they're seeking. It's important to be judicious in editing your question, especially after an answer has been posted.
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-10T23:55:45.703Z
It's also a good idea to wait at least 48 hours after posting a question before accepting an answer, to give others an opportunity to post alternative answers.
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
<star><the-sun><astrophysics><life><earth-like-planet>
What types of star do we know are hostile to life (like ours)?
Paran
# What types of star do we know are hostile to life (like ours)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-10)

Certainly all stars have enough energy for a planet to host life. But a more magnetically active star is not preferred because solar ejection could strip planets of their atmosphere. What's the right balance?

***Which stellar category of a star is suitable for hosting life excluding G2V class (our Sun's category)?***

**Tags:** star, the-sun, astrophysics, life, earth-like-planet
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You need to ask the inverse question. What types of star do we know are hostile to life (like ours)?  
> **username_2**: O and K plus. Cepheids and other major variable or flare stars are out too.  
> **username_3**: Having edited your question title, you've now created an obvious contradiction between the title "What types of star do we know are hostile to life?" and the content in bold "Which stellar category of a star is suitable for hosting life?" And you've accepted James K's answer to your original question, but Astronomy SE readers who see your current question title will not find the answer they're seeking. It's important to be judicious in editing your question, especially after an answer has been posted.  
> **username_3**: It's also a good idea to wait at least 48 hours after posting a question before accepting an answer, to give others an opportunity to post alternative answers.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-06-10. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

We so far have a sample size of 1. We know that a largish star, with a surface temperature at about 4.5 billion years of 5800K can be stable enough to support life for long enough for intelligence to evolve. We are fairly sure that very large stars don't last long enough.

With only one data point to extrapolate there is a tendency to think that stars that are like the sun offer the best environment for life. We are fairly sure that very large stars don't last long enough. It seems reasonable to exclude highly variable stars, or ones whose outbursts would strip the atmosphere from any planet. Intuitively these would seem to be less likely sites for life. But there is no strong evidence in the form of multiple discoveries of extra-terrestrial life to support this.

In short we don't know what stars can support life.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Note that the question has been edited since I wrote this answer  

---

