This question already has an answer here:

Would the supernova responsible for its formation destroy them. The question becomes one of how destructive the supernova event is to its own solar system - does it completely evaporate all planets up to and including Jupiter size?

The duplicate deals with "safe distance". I want to know whether any planets in a solar system like ours would survive. In other words, would something like Jupiter be completely evaporated or blown out of orbit


marked as duplicate by honeste_vivere, AccidentalFourierTransform, Gert, knzhou, John Rennie black-holes May 22 '16 at 6:15

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In principle any gravitating body can have planets. $\endgroup$ – Ari May 21 '16 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ At the centre of the Milky Way is believed to be a black hole, which the Sun is orbiting. $\endgroup$ – jim May 21 '16 at 17:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You might want to change the title of you questions to something like "Could planets survive their star becoming a black hole?" or something similar. As it stands "Can a Black Hole have planets?" makes your question seem simpler, and less interesting, than it its. $\endgroup$ – M. Enns May 21 '16 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ This seems more of a question for Worldbuilding SE. $\endgroup$ – AMACB May 21 '16 at 17:22
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate of What is the safe distance to a supernova explosion? $\endgroup$ – honeste_vivere May 21 '16 at 18:10

When black holes form from the collapse of stars, we think they usually produce bright supernovae explosions which release tremendous amounts of energy. Some models suggest that a non-negligible fraction of stars which produce black holes may not produce normal supernovae, these are often called 'failed supernovae', see for example astrobites: Gone Without A Bang. In this case, a 'weak' explosion is still, likely, produced --- but may be too weak to destroy/damage surrounding planets.

More typical supernovae will remove all the atmosphere from rocky planets, and some fraction of the atmosphere from gas giants (see also: this article, some minor issues though). But, likely, most planets in the habitable zone wouldn't actually be destroyed. So the planets could survive, but life on them likely would not.

One additional consideration is that the remnants of supernovae (neutron stars and black holes) are known to receive 'kicks' from the explosion. Asymmetries in the blast can cause the remnant to recoil at large velocities (up to 100s of km/s). These are believed to be somewhat lower for black holes, but still, depending on the magnitude of the kick --- planets could definitely be lost. This is one way of creating 'rogue' or 'runaway' planets.


A black hole $m\approx300,000M_{sun}$ at the center of galaxy $NGC 4845$ is thought to have a giant gas planet with the mass no larger than that of a brown star in orbit, though it is currently being drained into the black hole. (And by currently I mean what we are seeing right now, which happened a long time ago).

The gas giant is thought to have been ejected from a star system. Rocky inner planets will probably have been swallowed up by any star at the end of its life cycle. The preservation of any planets around a star that goes supernova is highly unlikely.

So.... kinda?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The object, which was more likely a dwarf star than a planet, was tidally disrupted, and likely destroyed. This was a transient event --- the black hole doesn't continually have this planet orbiting it that we know of. Additionally, this is a supermassive black hole, which is different in nature from stellar mass black holes which the OP is asking about. $\endgroup$ – DilithiumMatrix May 21 '16 at 20:58
  • $\begingroup$ It was likely a failed planet, a failed planet is a planet. Fact is it orbited around the black hole before being obliterated. If it is classified as a SM black hole, it is a minor one. This is simply the most charitable a yes here gets. $\endgroup$ – Feyre May 22 '16 at 9:57