4.7 Article

The overdensity in Virgo, Sagittarius debris, and the asymmetric spheroid

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 668, 期 1, 页码 221-235

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/521068

关键词

galaxies : individual (Sagittarius); Galaxy : halo; Galaxy : structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the relationship between several previously identified Galactic halo stellar structures in the direction of Virgo using imaging and spectroscopic observations of F turnoff stars and blue horizontal-branch stars from SDSS and SEGUE. We show that the Sagittarius dwarf leading tidal tail does not pass through the solar neighborhood; it misses the Sun by more than 15 kpc, passing through the Galactic plane outside the solar circle. Nor is it spatially coincident with the large stellar overdensity S297+ 63-20.5 in the Virgo constellation. S297+ 63-20.5 has a distinct turnoff color and kinematics. Faint (g(0) similar to 20.3) turnoff stars in S297+ 63-20.5 have line-of-sight, Galactic standard of rest velocities V-gsr = 130 +/- 10 km s(-1), opposite in sign to infalling Sgr tail stars. The path of the Sgr leading tidal tail is also inconsistent with the positions of some of the nearer stars with which it has been associated and whose velocities have favored models with prolate Milky Way potentials. We also show that the number densities of brighter (g(0) similar to 19.8) F turnoff stars are not symmetric about the Galactic center and that this discrepancy is not primarily due to the S297+ 63-20.5 moving group. Either the spheroid is asymmetric about the Galactic center or there are additional substructures that conspire to be on the same side of the Galaxy as S297+ 63-20.5. The S297+ 63-20.5 overdensity in Virgo is likely associated with two other previously identified Virgo substructures: the Virgo stellar stream (VSS) and the Virgo overdensity (VOD). However, the velocity difference between the VSS and S297+ 63-20.5 and the difference in distance estimates between the VOD and S297+ 63-20.5 must be reconciled.

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