First off, we'd be pretty far out. If I recall, a year would be closer to several centuries than 365 days.
The habitable zone is only relevant for temperatures where water could persist as a liquid. Given a proper magnetic shield and atmosphere.
R136a1 is among some of the most luminous stars in the galaxy, with a surface temperature of 46000 K and 7.2 million times the sun's luminosity.
Why is the surface temperature important here? Because of Wien's law, which describes the relationship between the peak of its radiation and the temperature of the object emitting it. For our sun, which has a surface temperature 5772 K. This means the peak of the sun's radiation is about 502 nm, which means the peak of its radiation is in the visible spectrum as described by Wien's law, and is pretty life giving all things considered.
By contrast, R136a1 has a peak of about 62 nm, which puts it well into the UV portion of the EM spectrum. It would appear blue to us, since statistically speaking, most of the radiation emitted would not be able to be seen. You'd also fry pretty quickly because all that shortwave UV would obliterate any DNA and quickly deplete the Ozone layer before it had a chance to recover.
The habitable zone is pretty far out, and from that distance R136a1 would be just an intense dot, about the size mars appears now but brighter than an arc welder. Pretty sure it would be bright enough to just leave a trail of burnt retina anytime you happened to glance at it.
Paradoxicaly, it would be dim. R136a1 is brighter in UV than visible, so most of the light reaching the earths surface would be UV. Even though the sunlight wouldn't appear bright, UV at the ground would be about 5x what it is now. No idea what effect that would have on the food chain. Tanning would not be safe.
But the big thing is in extreme UV. Less than 1% of the sun's output is EUV , most of R136a1's is. EUV is absorbed in the upper atmosphere, so you'd get a weird situation where ~6x as much energy is heating up there as reaches the ground. Not sure how that works out. I can imagine it heating to the point where the main source of heat on the ground isn't directly from the star, but because the sky is hot. Can also imagine that burning the atmosphere off into space, but no idea how long that would take.
Finally, there's the stellar wind. That thing puts out the mass of earths atmosphere every second. No idea how dense that makes space around it, but can't help wondering if it's enough that you have to start worrying about chemistry.
It's all outflowing from the star, though, so it's not building up in space around it. There's one Earth's atmosphere distributed in a spherical shell many au in radius and one second's worth of outflow thick. Even at 1 au distance that comes out to 4*pi*(150,000,000 km)2 * 1000 km so over 1018 cubic kilometers, compared to an approximate volume of the Earth's atmosphere being 4*pi*(6400 km)2 * 100 km or a bit under 1011 km3. That's expansion by a factor of 107. 10-7 atm is, like I said, nearly indistinguishable from vacuum. And we're placing the Earth much farther away than 1 au from this star.
I can imagine it heating to the point where the main source of heat on the ground isn't directly from the star, but because the sky is hot. Can also imagine that burning the atmosphere off into space, but no idea how long that would take.
Just FYI: you're describing Hydrodynamic Escape here. The second equation there allow one to calculate the atmospheric escape rate, which is directly proportional to the EUV flux, but depends even more strongly on where in the atmosphere that energy is absorbed.
So most of those rely upon the surface-dwelling plankton that would be nuked by the new levels of radiation.
Tidal cycles would be destroyed that keep other base species alive.
Large organisms live in delicate balance to their ecosystems.
It would be hard on many microorganisms as well, but they adapt quickly over generations. They'd start a new evolutionary chain. Restarting the macro over the next set of millions of years.
First off, we'd be pretty far out. If I recall, a year would be closer to several centuries than 365 days.
The habitable zone is only relevant for temperatures where water could persist as a liquid. Given a proper magnetic shield and atmosphere.
R136a1 is among some of the most luminous stars in the galaxy, with a surface temperature of 46000 K and 7.2 million times the sun's luminosity.
Why is the surface temperature important here? Because of Wien's law, which describes the relationship between the peak of its radiation and the temperature of the object emitting it. For our sun, which has a surface temperature 5772 K. This means the peak of the sun's radiation is about 502 nm, which means the peak of its radiation is in the visible spectrum as described by Wien's law, and is pretty life giving all things considered.
By contrast, R136a1 has a peak of about 62 nm, which puts it well into the UV portion of the EM spectrum. It would appear blue to us, since statistically speaking, most of the radiation emitted would not be able to be seen. You'd also fry pretty quickly because all that shortwave UV would obliterate any DNA and quickly deplete the Ozone layer before it had a chance to recover.
Would be any weekday in Melbourne after the move
That thing is quite an object.
The habitable zone is pretty far out, and from that distance R136a1 would be just an intense dot, about the size mars appears now but brighter than an arc welder. Pretty sure it would be bright enough to just leave a trail of burnt retina anytime you happened to glance at it.
Paradoxicaly, it would be dim. R136a1 is brighter in UV than visible, so most of the light reaching the earths surface would be UV. Even though the sunlight wouldn't appear bright, UV at the ground would be about 5x what it is now. No idea what effect that would have on the food chain. Tanning would not be safe.
But the big thing is in extreme UV. Less than 1% of the sun's output is EUV , most of R136a1's is. EUV is absorbed in the upper atmosphere, so you'd get a weird situation where ~6x as much energy is heating up there as reaches the ground. Not sure how that works out. I can imagine it heating to the point where the main source of heat on the ground isn't directly from the star, but because the sky is hot. Can also imagine that burning the atmosphere off into space, but no idea how long that would take.
Finally, there's the stellar wind. That thing puts out the mass of earths atmosphere every second. No idea how dense that makes space around it, but can't help wondering if it's enough that you have to start worrying about chemistry.
The mass of Earth's atmosphere distributed over a sphere many au in radius would be nearly indistinguishable from vacuum.
True, but it's been going for a lot of seconds.
It's all outflowing from the star, though, so it's not building up in space around it. There's one Earth's atmosphere distributed in a spherical shell many au in radius and one second's worth of outflow thick. Even at 1 au distance that comes out to 4*pi*(150,000,000 km)2 * 1000 km so over 1018 cubic kilometers, compared to an approximate volume of the Earth's atmosphere being 4*pi*(6400 km)2 * 100 km or a bit under 1011 km3. That's expansion by a factor of 107. 10-7 atm is, like I said, nearly indistinguishable from vacuum. And we're placing the Earth much farther away than 1 au from this star.
Just FYI: you're describing Hydrodynamic Escape here. The second equation there allow one to calculate the atmospheric escape rate, which is directly proportional to the EUV flux, but depends even more strongly on where in the atmosphere that energy is absorbed.
Most every large organism would die.
Would that apply to sea species too? Wouldn't the UV be blocked by water?
So most of those rely upon the surface-dwelling plankton that would be nuked by the new levels of radiation.
Tidal cycles would be destroyed that keep other base species alive.
Large organisms live in delicate balance to their ecosystems.
It would be hard on many microorganisms as well, but they adapt quickly over generations. They'd start a new evolutionary chain. Restarting the macro over the next set of millions of years.