4.7 Article

HAZMAT. IX. An Analysis of the UV and X-Ray Evolution of Low-mass Stars in the Era of Gaia

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 951, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd2dc

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Low-mass stars, especially M stars, are promising candidates for hosting planets with detectable life due to their long lifetimes and comparable UV fluxes in the habitable zone with K stars. However, there is a slightly larger X-ray flux in the habitable zone of late M stars compared to K stars. This suggests that while there may not be a K-dwarf advantage in UV radiation, there may still be an advantage in X-ray radiation.
Low-mass stars (& LE;1 M (& ODOT;)) are some of the best candidates for hosting planets with detectable life because of these stars' long lifetimes and relative ratios of planet to star mass and radius. An important aspect of these stars to consider is the amount of ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray radiation incident on planets in the habitable zones due to the ability of UV and X-ray radiation to alter the chemistry and evolution of planetary atmospheres. In this work, we build on the results of the HAZMAT I and HAZMAT III M-star studies to determine the intrinsic UV and X-ray flux evolution with age for M stars using Gaia parallactic distances. We then compare these results to the intrinsic fluxes of K stars adapted from HAZMAT V. We find that although the intrinsic M-star UV flux is 10-100 times lower than that of K stars, the UV fluxes in their respective habitable zone are similar. However, the habitable zone X-ray flux evolutions are slightly more distinguishable with a factor of 3-15 times larger X-ray flux for late M stars than for K stars. These results suggest that there may not be a K-dwarf advantage compared to M stars in the UV, but one may still exist in the X-ray.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available