<p>The paper <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2895" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2895</a> says that solid planets up to thousands of Earth masses may be able to form around massive stars (B-type and O-type stars; 5–120 solar masses), where the protoplanetary disk would contain enough heavy elements. Also, these stars have high UV radiation and winds that could photoevaporate the gas in the disk, leaving just the heavy elements.</p>
<p>What are the difficulties in detecting planets around O-type stars and will we ever be able to do so?</p>
<p>If planets can't form around O-type stars then can you provide a reference for that?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T22:56:03.573Z
A 'planet' with ~7000 earth masses would already be a Brown dwarf
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T23:06:32.487Z
Well the 13 Jupiter mass dividing line is close to 4000 earth masses, however that is based on solar metallicity and anyway none of the exoplanet catalogs use the 13 Mj figure as their inclusion criteria.
sno
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T23:14:15.153Z
The difficulties are those that there aren't any O-type stars around to detect planets. O stars  have incredibly short lifetimes and are going Supernova before their birth cluster even disperses. Also note that the numbers and assumptions quoted in that 2007 article are pre-CoroT and pre-Kepler and pre-CKS, i.e. heavily outdated. Recent data (Adibekyan et al 2019) shows that the few high-mass stars that we have been able to look at, have trouble forming rocky as well as gaseous planets.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-22T23:55:56.057Z
Not to mention, small planet to star mass/size ratios means harder to detect planets. Sure, O-type stars might make comparatively larger planets, but it planet size doesn't scale linearly with star size (and I've no idea if it does, but I suspect it doesn't), then the planet to star mass/size ratio is going to be smaller.
zephyr
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-23T00:17:23.933Z
ProfRob wrote [a nice answer to a similar question](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/41882/2153), which may be helpful.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-23T01:52:33.847Z
Like @HDE226868 said, [my question here](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/41878/31410) is closely related to your post, if not a duplicate. Is there anything that makes yours different? If so, please edit into your question.
WarpPrime
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-23T02:44:33.637Z
I've edited the question to add If planets can't form around O-type stars then can you provide a reference for that?
sno
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-23T14:32:53.467Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape could you provide more details on the Adibekyan reference like the title because I can't find it.
sno
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-23T17:17:06.693Z
@sno https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Geosc...9..105A/abstract
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
<exoplanet>
Planets around O-type stars
sno
# Planets around O-type stars

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-06-22)

The paper <https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2895> says that solid planets up to thousands of Earth masses may be able to form around massive stars (B-type and O-type stars; 5–120 solar masses), where the protoplanetary disk would contain enough heavy elements. Also, these stars have high UV radiation and winds that could photoevaporate the gas in the disk, leaving just the heavy elements.

What are the difficulties in detecting planets around O-type stars and will we ever be able to do so?

If planets can't form around O-type stars then can you provide a reference for that?

**Tags:** exoplanet
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: A 'planet' with ~7000 earth masses would already be a Brown dwarf  
> **username_0**: Well the 13 Jupiter mass dividing line is close to 4000 earth masses, however that is based on solar metallicity and anyway none of the exoplanet catalogs use the 13 Mj figure as their inclusion criteria.  
> **username_2**: The difficulties are those that there aren't any O-type stars around to detect planets. O stars  have incredibly short lifetimes and are going Supernova before their birth cluster even disperses. Also note that the numbers and assumptions quoted in that 2007 article are pre-CoroT and pre-Kepler and pre-CKS, i.e. heavily outdated. Recent data (Adibekyan et al 2019) shows that the few high-mass stars that we have been able to look at, have trouble forming rocky as well as gaseous planets.  
> **username_3**: Not to mention, small planet to star mass/size ratios means harder to detect planets. Sure, O-type stars might make comparatively larger planets, but it planet size doesn't scale linearly with star size (and I've no idea if it does, but I suspect it doesn't), then the planet to star mass/size ratio is going to be smaller.  
> **username_4**: ProfRob wrote [a nice answer to a similar question](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/41882/2153), which may be helpful.  
> **username_5**: Like @HDE226868 said, [my question here](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/41878/31410) is closely related to your post, if not a duplicate. Is there anything that makes yours different? If so, please edit into your question.  
> **username_0**: I've edited the question to add If planets can't form around O-type stars then can you provide a reference for that?  
> **username_0**: @AtmosphericPrisonEscape could you provide more details on the Adibekyan reference like the title because I can't find it.  
> **username_2**: @sno https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Geosc...9..105A/abstract  

---

## 0 answers

