4.7 Article

The Gould's Belt Distances Survey (GOBELINS). IV. Distance, Depth, and Kinematics of the Taurus Star-forming Region

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 859, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf91

关键词

astrometry; binaries: visual; radiation mechanisms: non-thermal; stars: distances; stars: kinematics and dynamics; techniques: interferometric

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2013/04934-8, 2015/14696-2]
  2. DGAPA, UNAM, Mexico [IN112417]
  3. CONACyT, Mexico
  4. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  5. NSF [AST-1449476]
  6. Research Corporation via a Time Domain Astrophysics Scialog award [24217]
  7. Brazilian agency FAPESP [2009/54006-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present new trigonometric parallaxes and proper motions of young stellar objects in the Taurus molecular cloud complex from observations collected with the Very Long Baseline Array as part of the Gould's Belt Distances Survey. We detected 26 young stellar objects and derived trigonometric parallaxes for 18 stars with an accuracy of 0.3% to a few percent. We modeled the orbits of six binaries and determined the dynamical masses of the individual components in four of these systems (V1023 Tau, T Tau S, V807 Tau, and V1000 Tau). Our results are consistent with the first trigonometric parallaxes delivered by the Gaia satellite and reveal the existence of significant depth effects. We find that the central portion of the dark cloud Lynds 1495 is located at d = 129.5 +/- 0.3 pc, while the B216 clump in the filamentary structure connected to it is at d = 158.1 +/- 1.2 pc. The closest and remotest stars in our sample are located at d = 126.6 +/- 1.7 pc and d = 162.7 +/- 0.8 pc, yielding a distance difference of about 36 pc. We also provide a new distance estimate for HL Tau that was recently imaged. Finally, we compute the spatial velocity of the stars with published radial velocity and investigate the kinematic properties of the various clouds and gas structures in this region.

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