4.6 Review

Exploring halo substructure with giant stars. VIII. The extended structure of the sculptor dwarf spheroidal galaxy

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 131, 期 1, 页码 375-406

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/496975

关键词

galaxies : dwarf; galaxies : halos; galaxies : individual ( Sculptor); galaxies : photometry; galaxies : structure; Local Group

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We explore the spatial distribution of stars in the Sculptor dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxy over an area of 7.82 deg(2), including coverage of the central region but extending mostly south and east of the dSph core. Two methods are used to identify stars that are most likely associated with the dSph, and these filtered samples of stars are used to map its spatial structure. First, following the method of previous contributions in this series, we utilize Washington M, T-2 + DDO51 photometry to identify red giant branch (RGB) star candidates with approximately the same distance and metallicity as the Sculptor dSph. Second, a prominent blue horizontal branch (BHB) population provides a fairly populous and pure sample of Sculptor stars having broadband colors unlike the bulk of the Galactic field star population. A spectroscopically observed subset of Sculptor candidate stars (147 total stars: similar to 5% of all Sculptor candidates and similar to 10% of Sculptor giant candidates) yields a systemic heliocentric velocity for the system of v(hel) = 110.43 +/- 0.79 km s(-1), in good agreement with previous studies. We also find a global velocity dispersion of sigma(v) = 8.8 +/- 0.6 km s(-1), with slight indications of a rise in the velocity dispersion past similar to 0.4r(lim). These spectra also provide a check on the reliability of our candidate Sculptor giant sample to M similar to 19; 94% of the photometrically selected Sculptor giant star candidates with follow-up spectroscopy are found to be kinematically associated with Sculptor, while 4 out of 10 stars outside of our Sculptor giant star selection criteria that we tested spectroscopically appear to be velocity members of Sculptor. These percentages are in agreement with results for an additional 22 Sculptor field stars with radial velocities in the literature. All available velocities show that our methodology for picking Sculptor giants is both reliable and conservative. Thus, these giant star samples should provide a reliable means to explore the structure of the Sculptor dSph. Nevertheless, considerable care has been taken to assess the level of background contamination in our photometric sample to ensure an accurately derived density profile of the Sculptor dSph to large radii. Multiple background assessments verify that we detect a considerable stellar density of Sculptor stars to the limits of our main survey area for both the RGB and BHB candidate samples. While we find that a King profile of limiting radius r(lim) = 79!6 fits the density profile of Sculptor well to similar to 600, beyond this, we identify a break'' in the profile and a clearly detected population of Sculptor stars following a Sigma proportional to r(-2) decline to more than 2r(lim). This break population must signify either the presence of an extremely broad distribution of bound halo stars'' around the Sculptor dSph or the presence of unbound tidal debris. If the latter is true, we determine a fractional mass-loss rate of approximately 0.042 Gyr(-1) for the Sculptor dSph. Additional support for the notion that there is tidal disruption comes from the two-dimensional distribution of our Sculptor candidate stars; both the RGB and BHB samples show increasingly elongated isodensity contours with radius that point to an apparent stretching reminiscent of what is seen in models of disrupting satellite galaxies. Finally, we find that RGB stars that are more likely to be metal-poor (based on their color and magnitude) are significantly les centrally concentrated and therefore constitute the primary contributing stellar population to the likely tidally stripped parts of the dSph.

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