I have observed much data about areas where humans of EARTH can potentially settle and call another planet new home. The area is considered the circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ). I came upon a question for ANY who are able to answer as best as they can. The question is: IF STARS ARE RELATED TO THE HZ or CHZ ARE THE STARS IN QUESTION BEING MINERALLY AND CHEMICALLY COMPARED TO EARTH STAR SOL THE SUN. Or are these areas just associating with HZ or CHZ due to them just having stars present in the planetary location ratio. I ask because if the actual STAR make up is not assessed then, yes some of these planets may have life and existing Fauna and Flora. BUT due to the make up of the STAR these Fauna and Flora may be harmful to Earth natives if the Star sending the radiation isn't = to or near the same chemical balance as SOL. Are you seeing where I am going with this. In short a planet may exist in a HZ but if the STAR is not similar to SOL it may be a wasted trip to say the least and even dangerous due to effects of ingested Fauna and Flora if hunting occurs. this WILL modify the species native to Earth in a harmful way. To add it may also cause what may be considered helpful enhanced abilities depending on the STAR of interest.
-------
habitable zone (HZ) galactic habitable zone (GHZ) circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ) definitions below.
In astronomy, the habitable zone (HZ) is the distance from a star where an Earth-like planet can maintain liquid water on its surface[1] and potentially therefore Earth-like life. The habitable zone is the intersection of two regions that must both be favorable to life: one within a planetary system, and the other within a galaxy. Planets and moons in these regions are the likeliest candidates to be habitable and thus capable in theory of bearing extraterrestrial life similar to our own.
The habitable zone is not to be confused with the planetary habitability. While planetary habitability deals solely with the planetary conditions required to maintain carbon-based life, the habitable zone deals with the stellar conditions required to maintain carbon-based life, and these two factors are not meant to be interchanged.
Life is most likely to form within the circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ) within a solar system, and the galactic habitable zone (GHZ) of the larger galaxy (though research on the latter point remains in its infancy). The HZ may also be referred to as the "life zone", "Comfort Zone", "Green Belt" or "Goldilocks Zone".[2]
A "Goldilocks planet" is a planet that falls within a star's habitable zone, and the name is often specifically used for planets close to the size of Earth.[3][4] The name comes from the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, in which a little girl chooses from sets of three items, ignoring the ones that are too extreme (large or small, hot or cold, etc.), and settling on the one in the middle, which is "just right". Likewise, a planet following this Goldilocks Principle is one that is neither too close nor too far from a star to rule out liquid water on its surface and thus life (as humans understand it) on the planet. However, planets within a habitable zone that are unlikely to host life (e.g., gas giants) may also be called Goldilocks planets. The best example of a Goldilocks planet is the Earth itself.
Sorry not the deepest of threads but something 1 has been thinking about. The question please answer as best as you can thanks.
IF STARS ARE RELATED TO THE HZ or CHZ ARE THE STARS IN QUESTION BEING MINERALLY AND CHEMICALLY COMPARED TO EARTH STAR SOL THE SUN for effects on potential native Fauna and Flora (especially if the intent is to farm and hunt or even transfer native earth fauna & flora to non native planet). Or are these areas just associating with HZ or CHZ due to them just having stars present in the planetary location ratio, and no data about star compound FULLY assessed before claiming these areas to be human HABITABLE ZONES.
Thanks