4.7 Article

Signatures of Tidal Disruption in Ultra-faint Dwarf Galaxies: A Combined HST, Gaia, and MMT/Hectochelle Study of Leo V

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 885, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45ec

关键词

Dwarf galaxies; Stellar populations; Tidal disruption; Galactic and extragalactic astronomy; HST photometry; Spectroscopy

资金

  1. NASA through Space Telescope Science Institute [HST-GO-15182.001]
  2. NSF [AST-1821987, AST-1821967, AST-1813708, AST-1813466, AST-1908972, AST-1813881, AST-1815403, AST-1312997, AST-1815767]
  3. National Science Foundation [AST-1816196, NSF PHY-1748958, PHY-1607611]
  4. NASA [HST-GO-15228, NAS 5-26555]
  5. Packard Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ultra-faint dwarf galaxy LeoV has shown both photometric overdensities and kinematic members at large radii, along with a tentative kinematic gradient, suggesting that it may have undergone a close encounter with the Milky Way. We investigate these signs of disruption through a combination of (i) high precision photometry obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), (ii) two epochs of stellar spectra obtained with the Hectochelle Spectrograph on the MMT, and (iii) measurements from the Gaia mission. Using the HST data, we examine one of the reported stream-like overdensities at large radii, and conclude that it is not a true stellar stream, but instead a clump of foreground stars and background galaxies. Our spectroscopic analysis shows that one known member star is likely a binary, and challenges the membership status of three others, including two distant candidates that had formerly provided evidence for overall stellar mass loss. We also find evidence that the proposed kinematic gradient across LeoV might be due to small number statistics. We update the systemic proper motion of LeoV, finding 5 half-light radii from the main body. These stars require further investigation. Therefore, the nature of LeoV still remains an open question.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据