4.7 Article

Characterizing the stellar population in NGC 1705-1

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 600, 期 1, 页码 162-181

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/379805

关键词

galaxies : dwarf; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : individual (NGC 1705); galaxies : irregular; galaxies : starburst; galaxies : stellar content

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We observed the brightest super - star cluster NGC 1705-1 in the nearby dwarf galaxy NGC 1705 with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph in the echelle mode between 1200 and 3100 Angstrom. The data allow a study of the young stellar population at hitherto unprecedented spectral resolution and signal-to-noise ratios. A comprehensive list of strong and weak stellar and interstellar absorption lines is given, together with the measured line parameters. Four distinct velocity systems are identified: stellar lines at the measured H I velocity, blueshifted interstellar lines from outflowing gas, Milky Way foreground absorption, and a high-velocity cloud. Comparison with stellar template spectra indicates an equivalent spectral type of B0 to B1, with mostly dwarf and giant stars contributing. When placed on a theoretical Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, these stars constrain the age of NGC 1705-1 to 12+/-(3)(1) Myr. Since this age is derived purely from spectroscopy, it is independent of reddening corrections. A comparison of the observed and theoretical mass-to-light ratio for the derived age was performed. We find no significant evidence for an anomalous initial mass function at the low-mass end, contrary to suggestions found in the literature. The stellar population of NGC 1705-1 is similar to that in other massive clusters, such as 30 Doradus or NGC 1569-A, after taking into account age differences and model uncertainties. We discuss the difficulty of relating observed and theoretical mass-to-light ratios because of the unknown gas mass fraction lost by the cluster and the uncertain mass-loss rates of asymptotic giant branch stars in population synthesis models.

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