<p>I think the quick answer to this is no, at least, any solar-system around a Wolf-Rayet or similarly large star wouldn't have time to develop.   I would think that large stars have solar-systems cause I see no reason why they wouldn't, but the stars don't last long enough for their solar-systems to develop much.   The formation period, including bombardment period(s) and time for the planets to cool down from the heat of formation takes a significant amount of time, perhaps a couple hundred million years minimum.</p>

<p>Our solar system's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment" rel="nofollow">late heavy bombardment</a> occurred between about 4.1 and 3.8 billion years ago, ending some 700 million years after our solar-system formed and Earth didn't cool down enough to have a magnetic field until about <a href="http://www.wired.com/2010/03/earths-magnetic-field-is-35-billion-years-old/" rel="nofollow">3.5 billion years ago</a>, roughly 1 billion years after formation.   Granted, that's a sample size of one, so numbers could vary quite a bit, but I have a hard time imagining that planet's could cool down and complete most of their early bombardment in the lifespan of a very large star.   </p>

<p>For developed solar-systems where the planets had time to cool and the solar-systems had time to mostly coalesce and get past early-bombardment, I don't think there's much of a window beyond maybe 2 solar masses  (a 2 solar mass star would have roughly 1/16th the lifespan of our sun, or a bit less than a billion years in main sequence), based on an exponential ratio to the 4th power of the star's mass.  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93luminosity_relation" rel="nofollow">Source</a>.</p>

<p>Now, as to whether a solar-system could survive a Wolf-Rayet star's enormous ejections, that's another question.   I'm not 100% sure but large planets are pretty resilient, so my guess is yes, but it's just a guess.</p>

<p>Another interesting question is gravity vs luminosity.   Our solar-system the furthest planet Neptune, about 30 astronomical units from the Sun, and, presumably a planet could orbit a fair bit further out than that and be in a stable orbit, but lets go with 30 AU.</p>

<p>A star with 10 times the mass of our sun during it's main sequence has roughly 3,000 times the luminosity (using the exponential relationship of 3.5 Mass to Luminosity - see <a href="http://cseligman.com/text/stars/mldiagram.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>)</p>

<p>The gravity for 10 solar masses, gravity reduces by the square of the distance, so square root of 10, a Neptune equivalent orbital velocity would be about 95 Astronomical Units, so, at 95 astronomical units from a star with 3,000 times the luminosity of our sun, the energy received from that star at that distance would be roughly 1/3rd the energy the Earth gets from the sun.</p>

<p>Too much larger than that, somewhere around 20 solar masses or, not much more than that, the star gets too hot to have much of a solar-system within it's theoretical Goldilocks zone.   Not that that matters much, cause the short lifespan of the star kind of answers the question anyway, but my guess would be, if planets survive around a Wolf-Rayet star, even the outer parts of such a solar-system should be hot unless they were enormously distant, like a couple hundred AUs.   There might be no ice or water planets around a star of that size.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-17T04:59:05.390Z
2015-11-17T07:10:21.700Z
2015-11-17T07:10:21.700Z
userLTK
<p>How do the size and heat of stars affect development of solar systems and what kinds of planets can develop? Is it possible to orbit supermassive stars? Furthermore, would star's unleashing violent winds such as wolf-rayet stars be candidates for solar system formations?</p>

<star><orbit><solar-system>
Is the size and heat of a star important in the development of a solar system?
Featherball
# Is the size and heat of a star important in the development of a solar system?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-11-16)

How do the size and heat of stars affect development of solar systems and what kinds of planets can develop? Is it possible to orbit supermassive stars? Furthermore, would star's unleashing violent winds such as wolf-rayet stars be candidates for solar system formations?

**Tags:** star, orbit, solar-system


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-11-17. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

I think the quick answer to this is no, at least, any solar-system around a Wolf-Rayet or similarly large star wouldn't have time to develop. I would think that large stars have solar-systems cause I see no reason why they wouldn't, but the stars don't last long enough for their solar-systems to develop much. The formation period, including bombardment period(s) and time for the planets to cool down from the heat of formation takes a significant amount of time, perhaps a couple hundred million years minimum.

Our solar system's [late heavy bombardment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment) occurred between about 4.1 and 3.8 billion years ago, ending some 700 million years after our solar-system formed and Earth didn't cool down enough to have a magnetic field until about [3.5 billion years ago](http://www.wired.com/2010/03/earths-magnetic-field-is-35-billion-years-old/), roughly 1 billion years after formation. Granted, that's a sample size of one, so numbers could vary quite a bit, but I have a hard time imagining that planet's could cool down and complete most of their early bombardment in the lifespan of a very large star.

For developed solar-systems where the planets had time to cool and the solar-systems had time to mostly coalesce and get past early-bombardment, I don't think there's much of a window beyond maybe 2 solar masses (a 2 solar mass star would have roughly 1/16th the lifespan of our sun, or a bit less than a billion years in main sequence), based on an exponential ratio to the 4th power of the star's mass. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93luminosity_relation).

Now, as to whether a solar-system could survive a Wolf-Rayet star's enormous ejections, that's another question. I'm not 100% sure but large planets are pretty resilient, so my guess is yes, but it's just a guess.

Another interesting question is gravity vs luminosity. Our solar-system the furthest planet Neptune, about 30 astronomical units from the Sun, and, presumably a planet could orbit a fair bit further out than that and be in a stable orbit, but lets go with 30 AU.

A star with 10 times the mass of our sun during it's main sequence has roughly 3,000 times the luminosity (using the exponential relationship of 3.5 Mass to Luminosity - see [here](http://cseligman.com/text/stars/mldiagram.htm))

The gravity for 10 solar masses, gravity reduces by the square of the distance, so square root of 10, a Neptune equivalent orbital velocity would be about 95 Astronomical Units, so, at 95 astronomical units from a star with 3,000 times the luminosity of our sun, the energy received from that star at that distance would be roughly 1/3rd the energy the Earth gets from the sun.

Too much larger than that, somewhere around 20 solar masses or, not much more than that, the star gets too hot to have much of a solar-system within it's theoretical Goldilocks zone. Not that that matters much, cause the short lifespan of the star kind of answers the question anyway, but my guess would be, if planets survive around a Wolf-Rayet star, even the outer parts of such a solar-system should be hot unless they were enormously distant, like a couple hundred AUs. There might be no ice or water planets around a star of that size.


---

