4.7 Article

Water masers as tracers of protostellar disks and outflows in the intermediate-mass star-forming region NGC 2071

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 581, 期 1, 页码 325-334

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/344225

关键词

HII regions; ISM : individual (NGC 2071); ISM : jets and outflows; masers; stars : formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have mapped the water maser emission associated with the infrared centers IRS 1 and IRS 3 of the NGC 2071IR star-forming region at four epochs over similar to4 months with the Very Long Baseline Array. We detected 269 maser features with similar to1 km s(-1) line widths and measured 30 proper motions. In each infrared center, the water maser emission appears to trace parts of a protostellar disk and collimated outflow. The disk components are similar to9 and similar to17 AU long in IRS 3 and IRS 1, respectively, and similar to2 AU wide. They are identified as disks by their compact size, elongation parallel to the direction of known IR polarization, central location in the maser maps, small internal proper motions, and proximity to lambda1.3 cm continuum emission. The outflows have axes perpendicular to the disks and exhibit proper motions of up to similar to42 km s(-1). They are outlined by maser emission up to similar to260 AU from the protostars. The IRS 3 outflow appears to be conical on one side, while the IRS 1 outflow comprises a narrowly collimated bipolar flow surrounded by outward-facing, funnel-shaped cavities. The detection of water maser emission tracing such compact disk components and specifically conical or funnel-shaped structures is unusual. The fact that the distributions are similar in IRS 3 and IRS 1 may indicate that the two infrared centers are roughly coeval. NGC 2071IR provides a rare opportunity to resolve the structures and dynamics of disks and outflows together and to do so for two protostars that are only similar to2000 AU apart (in projection) in a deeply embedded star-forming region of intermediate luminosity.

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