4.6 Article

Dust in the bright supernova remnant N49 in the LMC

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 518, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014642

关键词

ISM: supernova remnants; dust, extinction; submillimeter: ISM; Magellanic Clouds

资金

  1. NASA Herschel Science Center [1381522]
  2. European Space Agency (ESA)
  3. PACS and SPIRE
  4. Herschel Science Center
  5. PACS and SPIRE instrument control center at CEA-Saclay
  6. STFC [ST/G002355/1, ST/F003196/1, PP/D000955/1, PP/F000057/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/G002355/1, PP/D000955/1, ST/F003196/1, PP/F000057/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the dust associated with the supernova remnant (SNR) N49 in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) as observed with the Herschel Space Observatory. N49 is unusually bright because of an interaction with a molecular cloud along its eastern edge. We have used PACS and SPIRE to measure the far IR flux densities of the entire SNR and of a bright region on the eastern edge of the SNR where the SNR shock is encountering the molecular cloud. Using these fluxes supplemented with archival data at shorter wavelengths, we estimate the dust mass associated with N49 to be about 10 M-circle dot. The bulk of the dust in our simple two-component model has a temperature of 20-30 K, similar to that of nearby molecular clouds. Unfortunately, as a result of the limited angular resolution of Herschel at the wavelengths sampled with SPIRE, the uncertainties are fairly large. Assuming this estimate of the dust mass associated with the SNR is approximately correct, it is probable that most of the dust in the SNR arises from regions where the shock speed is too low to produce significant X-ray emission. The total amount of warm 50-60 K dust is similar to 0.1 or 0.4 M-circle dot, depending on whether the dust is modeled in terms of carbonaceous or silicate grains. This provides a firm lower limit to the amount of shock heated dust in N49.

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