4.7 Article

STAR-FORMING CORES EMBEDDED IN A MASSIVE COLD CLUMP: FRAGMENTATION, COLLAPSE, AND ENERGETIC OUTFLOWS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 693, 期 2, 页码 1379-1391

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1379

关键词

dust, extinction; ISM: clouds; ISM: individual (ISOSS J18364-0221); ISM: jets and outflows; ISM: kinematics and dynamics; stars: formation

资金

  1. DLR (German Space Agency) [50 OS 0501]
  2. DLR
  3. CNRS (France)
  4. MPG (Germany)
  5. IGN (Spain)
  6. NASA
  7. NSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fate of massive cold clumps, their internal structure, and collapse need to be characterized to understand the initial conditions for the formation of high-mass stars, stellar systems, and the origin of associations and clusters. We explore the onset of star formation in the 75 M(circle dot) SMM1 clump in the region ISOSS J18364-0221 using infrared and (sub-)millimeter observations including interferometry. This contracting clump has fragmented into two compact cores SMM1 North and South of 0.05 pc radius, having masses of 15 and 10 M(circle dot), and luminosities of 20 L(circle dot) and 180 L(circle dot). SMM1 South harbors a source traced at 24 and 70 mu m, drives an energetic molecular outflow, and appears supersonically turbulent at the core center. SMM1 North has no infrared counterparts and shows lower levels of turbulence, but also drives an outflow. Both outflows appear collimated, and parsec-scale near-infrared features probably trace the outflow-powering jets. We derived mass outflow rates of at least 4 x 10(-5) M(circle dot) yr(-1) and outflow timescales of less than 10(4) yr. Our HCN(1-0) modeling for SMM1 South yielded an infall velocity of 0.14 km s(-1) and an estimated mass infall rate of 3 x 10(-5) M(circle dot) yr(-1). Both cores may harbor seeds of intermediate- or high-mass stars. We compare the derived core properties with recent simulations of massive core collapse. They are consistent with the very early stages dominated by accretion 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