4.6 Article

Crossing the yellow void: Spatially resolved spectroscopy of the post-red supergiant IRC+10420 and its circumstellar ejecta

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 124, 期 2, 页码 1026-1044

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/341380

关键词

stars : atmospheres; stars : evolution; stars : individual (IRC+10420); supergiants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IRC + 10420 is one of the extreme hypergiant stars that define the empirical upper luminosity boundary in the H-R diagram. During their post-red supergiant evolution, these massive stars enter a temperature range (6000-9000 K) of increased dynamical instability, high mass loss, and increasing opacity, a semiforbidden region that de Jager and his collaborators have called the yellow void. We report HST/STIS spatially resolved spectroscopy of IRC + 10420 and its reflection nebula with some surprising results. Long-slit spectroscopy of the reflected spectrum allows us to effectively view the star from different directions. Measurements of the double-peaked Ha emission profile show a uniform outflow of gas in a nearly spherical distribution, contrary to previous models with an equatorial disk or bipolar outflow. Based on the temperature and mass-loss rate estimates that are usually quoted for this object, the wind is optically thick to the continuum at some and possibly all wavelengths. Consequently, the observed variations in apparent spectral type and inferred temperature are changes in the wind and do not necessarily mean that the underlying stellar radius and interior structure are evolving on such a short timescale. To explain the evidence for simultaneous outflow and infall of material near the star, we propose a rain model, in which blobs of gas condense in regions of lowered opacity outside the dense wind. With the apparent warming of its wind, the recent appearance of strong emission, and a decline in the mass-loss rate, IRC + 10420 may be about to shed its opaque wind, cross the yellow void, and emerge as a hotter star.

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