4.6 Article

Herschel-PACS observation of the 10 Myr old T Tauri disk TW Hya Constraining the disk gas mass

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 518, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014578

关键词

circumstellar disks

资金

  1. SUPA astrobiology fellowship
  2. Spanish [AYA 2008-01727]
  3. EC 7th Framework Program [PIEF-GA-2008-220891]
  4. NASA/JPL
  5. Spanish MICINN [AYA2008-02156]
  6. PNPS, CNES and ANR [ANR-07-BLAN-0221]
  7. STFC [PP/D000963/1, ST/G002533/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/D000963/1, PP/E001181/1, ST/G002533/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Planets are formed in disks around young stars. With an age of similar to 10 Myr, TW Hya is one of the nearest T Tauri stars that is still surrounded by a relatively massive disk. In addition a large number of molecules has been found in the TW Hya disk, making TW Hya the perfect test case in a large survey of disks with Herschel-PACS to directly study their gaseous component. We aim to constrain the gas and dust mass of the circumstellar disk around TW Hya. We observed the fine-structure lines of [OI] and [CII] as part of the open-time large program GASPS. We complement this with continuum data and ground-based (12) CO 3-2 and (CO)-C-13 3-2 observations. We simultaneously model the continuum and the line fluxes with the 3D Monte-Carlo code MCFOST and the thermo-chemical code ProDiMo to derive the gas and dust masses. We detect the [OI] line at 63 mu m. The other lines that were observed, [OI] at 145 mu m and [CII] at 157 mu m, are not detected. No extended emission has been found. Preliminary modeling of the photometric and line data assuming [(CO)-C-12]/[(CO)-C-13] = 69 suggests a dust mass for grains with radius < 1 mm of similar to 1.9 x 10(-4) M-circle dot (total solid mass of 3 x 10(-3) M-circle dot) and a gas mass of (0.5-5) x 10(-3) M-circle dot. The gas-to-dust mass may be lower than the standard interstellar value of 100.

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