4.6 Article

Spectroscopy of very low mass stars and brown dwarfs in the Lambda Orionis star forming region I. Enlarging the census down to the planetary mass domain in Collinder 69

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 536, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116617

关键词

brown dwarfs; stars: formation; stars: luminosity function; mass function, infrared: stars; stars: low-mass; open clusters and associations: individual: Collinder 69

资金

  1. ESAC faculty
  2. Spanish MICINN [AyA2008-02156]
  3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  4. [ESP2007-65475-C02-02]
  5. [CSD2006-00070]
  6. [PRICITS-2009/ESP-1496]
  7. [AYA 2010-21161-C02-02]
  8. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22000005] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. Whilst there is a generally accepted evolutionary scheme for the formation of low-mass stars, the analogous processes when moving down in mass to the brown dwarf regime are not yet well understood. Aims. In this first paper, we try to compile the most complete and unbiased spectroscopically confirmed census of the population of Collinder 69, the central cluster of the Lambda Orionis star forming region, as a first step in addressing the question of how brown dwarfs and planetary mass objects form. Methods. We study age dependent features in optical and near-infrared spectra of candidate members to the cluster (such as alkali lines and accretion-associated indicators). In addition, we complement that study with the analysis of other youth indicators, such as X-ray emission or mid-infrared excess. Results. We confirm the membership to Collinder 69 of similar to 90 photometric candidate members. As a byproduct, we determine a temperature scale for young M, very low-mass stars, and brown dwarfs. We assemble one of the most complete initial mass functions from 0.016 to 20 M-circle dot. Finally, we study the implications of the spatial distribution of the confirmed members for the proposed mechanisms of brown dwarf formation.

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