4.6 Article

The solar neighborhood.: XVII.: Parallax results from the CTIOPI 0.9 m program:: 20 new members of the recons 10 PARSEC sample

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 132, 期 6, 页码 2360-2371

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/508233

关键词

astrometry; solar neighborhood; stars : distances; stars : low-mass; brown dwarfs; stars : statistics; surveys

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Astrometric measurements for 25 red dwarf systems are presented, including the first definitive trigonometric parallaxes for 20 systems within 10 pc of the Sun, the horizon of the RECONS sample. The three nearest systems that had no previous trigonometric parallaxes (other than perhaps rough preliminary efforts) are SO 0253+1652 (3.84 +/- 0.04 pc, the 23rd nearest system), SCR 1845-6357 AB (3.85 +/- 0.02 pc, 24th nearest), and LHS 1723 (5.32 +/- 0: 04 pc, 56th nearest). In total, seven of the systems reported here rank among the nearest 100 stellar systems. Supporting photometric and spectroscopic observations have been made to provide full characterization of the systems, including complete VRIJHK(S) photometry and spectral types. A study of the variability of 27 targets reveals six obvious variable stars, including GJ 1207, for which we observed a flare event in the V band that caused it to brighten by 1.7 mag. Improved parallaxes for GJ 54 AB and GJ 1061, both important members of the 10 pc sample, are also reported. Definitive parallaxes for GJ 1001 A, GJ 633, and GJ 2130 ABC, all of which have been reported to be within 10 pc, indicate that they are beyond 10 pc. From the analysis of systems with (previously) high trigonometric parallax errors, we conclude that parallaxes with errors in excess of 10 mas are insufficiently reliable for inclusion in the RECONS sample. The cumulative total of new additions to the 10 pc sample since 2000 is now 34 systems: 28 by the RECONS team and six by other groups. This total represents a net increase of 16% in the number of stellar systems reliably known to be nearer than 10 pc.

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

4.6
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