# astrology - stars (again)



## Asura Levi (May 10, 2015)

This is another rather tricky question since it doesn't have a particularly 'right' answer, but here we go.

What would be the habitable zone of a blue giant? In earth-years terms. If a planet were to exist and support life in the habitable zone of a blue star (of any size, but of blue light), how many earth years would take for said planet to complete one year?

For the sake of simplicity, lets just assume that said planet exist, regardless of real possibilities.

Thank you all for your time.


----------



## X Equestris (May 10, 2015)

This should be somewhat helpful.  It's from a university lecture, and includes some other factors.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast141/Unit5/Lect34_StarHZ.pdf

Type A stars are the smallest stars that can be blue, and it gives estimates on one of the slides.  

Calculating orbits is harder, but once you have a range for the habitable zone, you can pick somewhere within there.


----------



## Lunaairis (May 10, 2015)

Well it all depends on the speed the planet is traveling around said sun as well as the size of the sun, so it could pretty much be anything. 

you can read up on the Goldilocks zone right over here


----------



## Asura Levi (May 10, 2015)

Lunaairis said:


> Well it all depends on the speed the planet is traveling around said sun as well as the size of the sun, so it could pretty much be anything.
> 
> you can read up on the Goldilocks zone right over here


I'm thinking on having a earth-size planet and in keeping about the same speed. But I frown to the idea in just paint the sun blue.


----------



## Pythagoras (May 12, 2015)

Astrology isn't the same thing as astronomy. Not to be a jerk by pointing that out, but the title of the thread was a little misleading, and it's a mistake that you probably wouldn't want to repeat if you were going to use the term in your writing.


----------



## Russ (May 12, 2015)

Pythagoras said:


> Astrology isn't the same thing as astronomy. Not to be a jerk by pointing that out, but the title of the thread was a little misleading, and it's a mistake that you probably wouldn't want to repeat if you were going to use the term in your writing.



I was thinking exactly the same thing and was surprised by the content of the thread.

Of course Pythagoras would point that out...


----------



## Asura Levi (May 13, 2015)

okay, maybe I got the balls switch around. I was utterly sure it was astrology, but it did sounded odd. Poor me.

Sorry for the misleading. My bad.


----------

