1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\usepackage{epsfig}
4: %\usepackage{lscape}
5: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
6: %\usepackage{mathptmx}
7:
8: %\received{20 October 2004}
9: %\accepted{21 October 2004}
10:
11: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.}
12: \newcommand{\hii}{\mbox{\ion{H}{2}}}
13: \newcommand{\lya}{\mbox{Ly$\alpha$}}
14: \newcommand{\lyb}{\mbox{Ly$\beta$}}
15: \newcommand{\taulyc}{\mbox{$\tau_{LyC}$}}
16: \newcommand{\alphaalpha}{\mbox{$\alpha^{eff}_{H\alpha}$}}
17: \newcommand{\alphaB}{\mbox{$\alpha_{B}$}}
18: \newcommand{\kms}{\mbox{$\,$km s$^{-1}$}}
19: \newcommand{\thC}{$\theta^1\,$C~Ori}
20: \newcommand{\thA}{$\theta^2\,$A~Ori}
21: \newcommand{\subsun}{M$_{\hbox{$\odot$}}$}
22: \newcommand{\peryr}{yr$^{-1}$}
23: \newcommand{\HST}{{\em HST\/}}
24: \newcommand{\Av}{A_V}
25: \newcommand{\tevap}{t_{\rm e}}
26: \newcommand{\tdyn}{t_{\rm d}}
27: \newcommand{\rcrit}{r_{\rm cr}}
28: \newcommand{\smy}{\mbox{M}_\odot \, \mbox{yr}^{-1}}
29: \newcommand{\Ha}{H$\alpha$}
30: \newcommand{\Hb}{H$\beta$}
31: \newcommand{\SII}{[\ion{S}{2}]\ 6731\AA}
32: \newcommand{\NII}{[\ion{N}{2}]\ 6583\AA}
33: \newcommand{\OI}{[\ion{O}{1}]\ 6300\AA}
34: \newcommand{\HeI}{\ion{He}{1}\ 5676\AA}
35: \newcommand{\OIII}{[\ion{O}{3}]\ 4959\AA}
36: \newcommand{\SIII}{[\ion{S}{3}]\ 6312\AA}
37: \newcommand{\SIIshort}{[\ion{S}{2}]}
38: \newcommand{\NIIshort}{[\ion{N}{2}]}
39: \newcommand{\OIshort}{[\ion{O}{1}]}
40: \newcommand{\HeIshort}{\ion{He}{1}}
41: \newcommand{\OIIIshort}{[\ion{O}{3}]}
42: \newcommand{\SIIIshort}{[\ion{S}{3}]}
43: \newcommand{\mysec}[2]{$#1\mbox{$^{\rm ''}\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}
44: \newcommand{\inthms}[3]{$#1^{\rm h}#2^{\rm m}#3^{\rm s}$}
45: \newcommand{\dechms}[4]{$#1^{\rm h}#2^{\rm m}#3\mbox{$^{\rm s}\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#4$}
46: \newcommand{\intdms}[3]{$#1^{\circ}#2'#3''$}
47: \newcommand{\decdms}[4]{$#1^{\circ}#2'#3\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#4$}
48: \newcommand{\msec}[2]{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}
49: \newcommand{\mmsec}[2]{$#1\mbox{$^s\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}
50: \newcommand{\mdeg}[2]{$#1\mbox{$^\circ \mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}
51: \newcommand{\mtsec}[2]{$#1\mbox{$^{\rm s}\mskip-7.6mu .\,$}#2$}
52: \newcommand{\tmb}{\mbox{T$_{\rm mb}$}}
53: \newcommand{\HII}{\mbox{H\,{\sc ii}}}
54: \newcommand{\dtco}{D$_{2}$CO}
55: \newcommand{\Htwo}{H$_{2}$}
56: \newcommand{\hdco}{HDCO}
57: \newcommand{\htco}{H$_{2}$CO}
58: \newcommand{\httco}{H$_{2}$$^{13}$CO}
59: \newcommand{\dttco}{D$_{2}$$^{13}$CO}
60: \newcommand{\nhtd}{NH$_{2}$D}
61: \newcommand{\ndth}{ND$_{2}$H}
62: \newcommand{\nht}{NH$_{3}$}
63: \newcommand{\kmps}{km s$^{-1}$}
64: \newcommand{\Lsun}{L$_{\odot}$}
65: \newcommand{\Msun}{M$_{\odot}$}
66: \newcommand{\Rsun}{R$_{\odot}$}
67: \newcommand{\tp}[2]{#1$\times$10$^{-{#2}}$}
68: \newcommand\lax{${_<\atop^{\sim}}$}
69: \newcommand\gax{${_>\atop^{\sim}}$}
70: \newcommand{\dcop}{DCO$^+$}
71: \newcommand{\hcop}{HCO$^+$}
72: \newcommand{\htcop}{H$^{13}$CO$^+$}
73: \newcommand{\val}[3]{$#1\mskip3mu_{-#2}\mskip-30mu^{+#3}$}
74: \newcommand{\vall}[3]{$#1\mskip3mu_{-#2}\mskip-37mu^{+#3}$}
75: \newcommand{\valll}[3]{$#1\mskip3mu_{-#2}\mskip-44mu^{+#3}$}
76: \newcommand{\frii}{FR{\sc \,ii}}
77: \newcommand{\sbeamp}[5]{{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$} $\times$ {$#3\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#4$}; $+#5^\circ$}
78: \newcommand{\sbeamm}[5]{{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$} $\times$ {$#3\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#4$}; $-#5^\circ$}
79: \newcommand{\offsetp}[3]{{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}; $+#3^\circ$}
80: \newcommand{\offsetm}[3]{{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}; $-#3^\circ$}
81:
82:
83: \begin{document}
84:
85:
86: \title{VLBA determination of the distance to nearby star-forming regions\\
87: II. Hubble 4 and HDE~283572 in Taurus}
88:
89:
90:
91: \author{Rosa M. \ Torres, Laurent Loinard}
92: \affil{Centro de Radiostronom\'{\i}a y Astrof\'{\i}sica,
93: Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico,\\
94: Apartado Postal 72--3 (Xangari), 58089 Morelia, Michoac\'an, M\'exico;\\
95: r.torres@astrosmo.unam.mx}
96:
97: \author{Amy J.\ Mioduszewski}
98: \affil{National
99: Radio Astronomy Observatory, Array Operations Center,\\ 1003
100: Lopezville Road, Socorro, NM 87801, USA}
101:
102: \and
103:
104: \author{Luis F.\ Rodr\'{\i}guez}
105: \affil{Centro de Radiostronom\'{\i}a y Astrof\'{\i}sica,
106: Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico,\\
107: Apartado Postal 72--3 (Xangari), 58089 Morelia, Michoac\'an, M\'exico}
108:
109:
110: \begin{abstract}
111:
112: The non-thermal 3.6 cm radio continuum emission from the naked T Tauri
113: stars Hubble 4 and HDE~283572 in Taurus has been observed with the
114: Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) at 6 epochs between September 2004 and
115: December 2005 with a typical separation between successive
116: observations of 3 months. Thanks to the remarkably accurate astrometry
117: delivered by the VLBA, the trajectory described by both stars on the
118: plane of the sky could be traced very precisely, and modeled as the
119: superposition of their trigonometric parallax and uniform proper
120: motion. The best fits yield distances to Hubble 4 and HDE~283572 of
121: 132.8 $\pm$ 0.5 and 128.5 $\pm$ 0.6 pc, respectively. Combining these
122: results with the other two existing VLBI distance determinations
123: in Taurus, we estimate the mean distance to the Taurus association
124: to be 137 pc with a dispersion (most probably reflecting the depth of
125: the complex) of about 20 pc.
126: \end{abstract}
127:
128: \keywords{Astrometry --- Radio continuum: stars --- Radiation
129: mechanisms: non-thermal --- Magnetic fields --- Stars: formation}
130:
131: \section{Introduction}
132:
133: While our understanding of the main sequence evolution of Solar-type
134: stars is now very solid, our comprehension of their youth is
135: significantly less advanced. Increasingly detailed pre-main sequence
136: theoretical models, as well as improved observational constraints are
137: clearly needed, and are actively sought (see Klein et al.\ 2007, White
138: et al.\ 2007, G\"udel et al.\ 2007 for recent reviews). On the
139: observational front, significant progress is currently being made
140: thanks to large on-going X-ray and infrared surveys of nearby
141: star-forming regions carried out with space observatories (e.g.\ Evans
142: et al.\ 2003, G\"udel et al.\ 2007). It should be noticed, however,
143: that some of the stellar parameters (luminosity, mass, etc.) most
144: relevant to constrain theoretical models depend critically both on the
145: quality of the data used to estimate them {\bf and} on the distance to
146: the object under consideration. Unfortunately, the distance to even
147: the nearest star-forming complexes (e.g.\ Taurus or $\rho-$Ophiuchus)
148: are not known to better than 20\% (Elias 1978a,b, Kenyon et al.\ 1994,
149: Knude \& Hog 1998, Bertout \& Genova 2006). This is, in part, a
150: consequence of the fact that the otherwise highly successful Hipparcos
151: mission (Perryman et al.\ 1997) performed comparatively poorly in
152: star-forming regions (Bertout et al.\ 1999) because young stars
153: --being still heavily embedded in their parental clouds-- are faint in
154: the optical bands observed by Hipparcos.
155:
156: \clearpage
157: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllr}
158: \rotate
159: \tablewidth{0pt}
160: \tablecaption{Measured source positions and fluxes}
161: \tablehead{
162: \colhead{Mean UT date} &
163: \colhead{$\alpha$ (J2000.0)} &
164: \colhead{$\sigma_\alpha$} &
165: \colhead{$\delta$ (J2000.0)} &
166: \colhead{$\sigma_\delta$} &
167: \colhead{$F_\nu$} &
168: \colhead{$\sigma$}\\%
169: ~~(yyyy.mm.dd ~~ hh:mm)~~ & & & & & (mJy) & ($\mu$Jy)}
170: \startdata
171: Hubble 4:\\%
172: 2004.09.19 ~~ 11:47 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{18}{47}{0327419} & \mmsec{0}{0000020} & \decdms{28}{20}{07}{398977} & \msec{0}{000050} & 0.67 & 54 \\%
173: 2005.01.04 ~~ 04:46 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{18}{47}{0319609} & \mmsec{0}{0000022} & \decdms{28}{20}{07}{389009} & \msec{0}{000071} & 0.76 & 73 \\%
174: 2005.03.25 ~~ 23:44 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{18}{47}{0318775} & \mmsec{0}{0000009} & \decdms{28}{20}{07}{381391} & \msec{0}{000021} & 4.66 & 114 \\%
175: 2005.07.04 ~~ 16:51 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{18}{47}{0328115} & \mmsec{0}{0000022} & \decdms{28}{20}{07}{375000} & \msec{0}{000053} & 0.65 & 58 \\%
176: 2005.09.18 ~~ 11:52 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{18}{47}{0330740} & \mmsec{0}{0000019} & \decdms{28}{20}{07}{370321} & \msec{0}{000040} & 1.25 & 53 \\%
177: 2005.12.28 ~~ 05:15 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{18}{47}{0323418} & \mmsec{0}{0000012} & \decdms{28}{20}{07}{360573} & \msec{0}{000025} & 1.53 & 51 \\%
178: \hline
179: \\[-0.15cm]%
180: HDE~283572:\\%
181: 2004.09.22 ~~ 11:35 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{21}{58}{8521561} & \mmsec{0}{0000004} & \decdms{28}{18}{06}{389421} & \msec{0}{000010} & 7.13 & 81 \\%
182: 2005.01.06 ~~ 04:39 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{21}{58}{8514573} & \mmsec{0}{0000048} & \decdms{28}{18}{06}{380015} & \msec{0}{000091} & 0.92 & 58 \\%
183: 2005.03.30 ~~ 23:34 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{21}{58}{8514676} & \mmsec{0}{0000022} & \decdms{28}{18}{06}{372534} & \msec{0}{000038} & 1.71 & 65 \\%
184: 2005.06.23 ~~ 17:34 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{21}{58}{8523648} & \mmsec{0}{0000007} & \decdms{28}{18}{06}{367852} & \msec{0}{000014} & 4.23 & 80 \\%
185: 2005.09.23 ~~ 11:32 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{21}{58}{8528216} & \mmsec{0}{0000070} & \decdms{28}{18}{06}{363175} & \msec{0}{000140} & 0.52 & 62 \\%
186: 2005.12.24 ~~ 05:31 \dotfill & \dechms{04}{21}{58}{8522172} & \mmsec{0}{0000028} & \decdms{28}{18}{06}{354808} & \msec{0}{000070} & 0.51 & 47
187: \enddata
188: \end{deluxetable}
189: \clearpage
190:
191: Future space missions such as GAIA will certainly be able to detect
192: stars much fainter than those accessible to Hipparcos, but these
193: missions will still be unable to access the most deeply embedded
194: populations, and are still at least a decade away. Radio observations
195: with Very Long Baseline Interferometers (VLBI) provide an interesting
196: alternative avenue, because they can deliver extremely accurate
197: absolute astrometry (better than 0.1 mas) if proper calibration is
198: applied. In the last few years, such observations have proven capable
199: of measuring the trigonometric parallax of sources within a few
200: kiloparsecs of the Sun with a precision of a few percents (Brisken et
201: al.\ 2000, 2002, Loinard et al.\ 2005, 2007, Xu et al.\ 2005,
202: Hachisuka et al. 2006, Hirota et al.\ 2007, Sandstrom et al.\
203: 2007). Because the sensitivity of VLBI experiments is limited, only
204: compact non-thermal emitters can usually be detected. In star-forming
205: regions, two kinds of such non-thermal sources exist: masers and
206: magnetically active young stars. Masers are ubiquitous in regions
207: where massive stars are formed, but they are absent or unpredictably
208: variable in low- and intermediate mass star-forming sites. Low-mass
209: young stars, on the other hand, tend to have active magnetospheres
210: that can generate detectable non-thermal continuum emission (e.g.\
211: Andr\'e et al.\ 1992, Feigelson \& Montmerle 1999, Dulk 1985). Thus,
212: the distance to nearby star-forming regions can be measured very
213: accurately if adequate non-thermal sources are identified in them, and
214: multi-epoch observations are obtained over the course of a few
215: years. This method has been successfully applied to water and methanol
216: masers in nearby massive star-forming regions (Xu et al.\ 2005,
217: Hachisuka et al. 2006, Hirota et al.\ 2007) and to the non-thermal
218: continuum emission associated with low-mass T Tauri stars (Loinard et
219: al.\ 2005, 2007, Sandstrom et al.\ 2007). In all these cases, a
220: precision typically an order of magnitude better than previous
221: estimates was achieved. Since adequate non-thermal sources are
222: available in essentially all the nearby sites of star formation,
223: multi-epoch VLBI observations have the potential of improving
224: significantly our knowledge of the space distribution of star-forming
225: regions around the Sun. With this goal in mind, we have initiated a
226: large project aimed at accurately measuring the trigonometric parallax
227: of a sample of magnetically active young stars in the most prominent
228: and often-studied northern star-forming regions within 1 kpc of the
229: Sun (Taurus, $\rho-$Ophiuchus, Perseus, Serpens, and Cepheus; the
230: distance to Orion has already been measured using VLBI
231: techniques--Hirota et al.\ 2007, Sandstrom et al.\ 2007) using the
232: 10-element Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) of the National Radio
233: Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). In the present article, we will
234: concentrate on HDE~283572 and Hubble 4, two young stars in
235: Taurus. This will allow us to examine in more detail the distribution
236: and kinematics of young stars in this important star-forming region.
237:
238: \clearpage
239: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllr}
240: \tablecaption{Julian dates and Earth coordinates for Hubble 4 and HDE~283572}
241: \tablehead{
242: \colhead{Mean UT date} &
243: \colhead{JD} &
244: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Earth Barycentric coordinates} \\%
245: (yyyy.mm.dd ~~ hh.mm) & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Astronomical Units}}
246: \startdata
247: Hubble4:\\%
248: 2004.09.19 ~~ 11:47 \dotfill & 2453267.99 & $+$1.006998486 & $-$0.052084106 & $-$0.022682627 \\%
249: 2005.01.04 ~~ 04:46 \dotfill & 2453374.70 & $-$0.231331103 & $+$0.875675935 & $+$0.379526720 \\%
250: 2005.03.25 ~~ 23:44 \dotfill & 2453454.48 & $-$0.990029933 & $-$0.069134209 & $-$0.030092055 \\%
251: 2005.07.04 ~~ 16:51 \dotfill & 2453556.20 & $+$0.228244142 & $-$0.908947748 & $-$0.394190784 \\%
252: 2005.09.18 ~~ 11:52 \dotfill & 2453631.99 & $+$1.005815421 & $-$0.069425778 & $-$0.030225422 \\%
253: 2005.12.28 ~~ 05:15 \dotfill & 2453732.72 & $-$0.107253794 & $+$0.898552365 & $+$0.389430205 \\%
254: \hline
255: \\[-0.15cm]%
256: HDE~283572:\\%
257: 2004.09.22 ~~ 11:35 \dotfill & 2453270.98 & $+$1.007690418 & $-$0.005037832 & $-$0.002285078 \\%
258: 2005.01.06 ~~ 04:39 \dotfill & 2453376.69 & $-$0.265058725 & $+$0.867496343 & $+$0.375981760 \\%
259: 2005.03.30 ~~ 23:34 \dotfill & 2453460.46 & $-$0.978622564 & $-$0.163101149 & $-$0.070826870 \\%
260: 2005.06.23 ~~ 17:34 \dotfill & 2453545.23 & $+$0.044465499 & $-$0.930888246 & $-$0.403696737 \\%
261: 2005.09.23 ~~ 11:32 \dotfill & 2453636.98 & $+$1.007380117 & $+$0.008930420 & $+$0.003741574 \\%
262: 2005.12.24 ~~ 05:31 \dotfill & 2453728.73 & $-$0.037702136 & $+$0.903636825 & $+$0.391632177 \\%
263: \enddata
264: \end{deluxetable}
265: \clearpage
266:
267: Hubble 4 is a K7 naked T Tauri star with an effective temperature of
268: 4060 K (Brice\~no et al.\ 2002). It has long been known to have a
269: particularly active magnetosphere that produces non-thermal radio
270: emission characterized by significant variability, large circular
271: polarization and a nearly flat spectral index (Skinner 1993). It was
272: detected in VLBI experiments, with a flux of a few mJy by Phillips et
273: al.\ (1991), and is also an X-ray source (G\"udel et al.\ 2007). The
274: superficial magnetic field of Hubble 4 has been estimated to be about
275: 2.5 kG using Zeeman-sensitive Ti I lines (Johns-Krull et al.\
276: 2004). HDE~283572, on the other hand, is a somewhat hotter
277: ($T_{\mbox{eff}} = $ 5770 K --Kenyon \& Hartmann 1995) G5 naked T
278: Tauri star. Early observations with the Einstein satellite showed that
279: it has a fairly bright X-ray counterpart (Walter et al.\ 1987). It was
280: initially detected as a radio source by O'Neal et al.\ (1990), and in
281: VLBI observations by Phillips et al.\ (1991) with a flux of about 1
282: mJy.
283:
284:
285: \section{Observations and data calibration}
286:
287: In this paper, we will make use of a series of six continuum 3.6 cm
288: (8.42 GHz) observations of Hubble 4 and HDE~283572 obtained roughly
289: every three months between September 2004 and December 2005 with the
290: VLBA (Tab.\ 1). Our pointing directions were at $\alpha_{J2000.0}$ =
291: \dechms{04}{18}{47}{033}, $\delta_{J2000.0}$ =
292: +\decdms{28}{20}{07}{398}, and $\alpha_{J2000.0}$ =
293: \dechms{04}{21}{58}{847}, $\delta_{J2000.0}$ =
294: +\decdms{28}{18}{06}{502} for Hubble 4 and HDE~283572, respectively.
295: Each observation consisted of series of cycles with two minutes on
296: source, and one minute on the main phase-referencing quasar J0429+2724
297: (the same for both targets). Each 24 minutes, we also observed three
298: secondary calibrators (J0433+2905, J0408+3032, and J0403+2600) forming
299: a triangle around the astronomical source (Fig.\ 1). All four
300: calibrators are very compact extragalactic sources whose absolute
301: positions are known to better than 1 milli-arcsecond (Beasley et al.\
302: 2002).
303:
304: \clearpage
305: \begin{figure}[!b]
306: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.65\textwidth,angle=-90]{f1.eps}}
307: \caption{Relative position of the astronomical targets (Hubble 4 and
308: HDE~283572), the main calibrator (J0429+2724), and the secondary
309: calibrators (J0433+2905, J0408+3032, and J0403+2600).}
310: \end{figure}
311: \clearpage
312:
313: The data were edited and calibrated using the Astronomical Image
314: Processing System (AIPS --Greisen 2003). The basic data reduction
315: followed the standard VLBA procedures for phase-referenced
316: observations. First, the most accurate measured Earth Orientation
317: Parameters obtained from the US Naval Observatory database were
318: applied to the data to improve the values initially used by the VLBA
319: correlator. Second, dispersive delays caused by free electrons in the
320: Earth's atmosphere were accounted for using estimates of the electron
321: content of the ionosphere derived from Global Positioning System (GPS)
322: measurements. {\it A priori} amplitude calibration based on the
323: measured system temperatures and standard gain curves was then
324: applied. The fourth step was to correct the phases for antenna
325: parallactic angle effects, and the fifth was to remove residual
326: instrumental delays caused by the VLBA electronics. This was done by
327: measuring the delays and phase residuals for each antenna and IF using
328: the fringes obtained on a strong calibrator. The final step of this
329: initial calibration was to remove global frequency- and time-dependent
330: phase errors using a global fringe fitting procedure on the main phase
331: calibrator (J0429+2724), which was assumed at this stage to be a point
332: source.
333:
334: In this initial calibration, the solutions from the global fringe fit
335: were only applied to the main phase calibrator itself. The
336: corresponding calibrated visibilities were then imaged, and several
337: passes of self- calibration were performed to improve the overall
338: amplitude and phase calibration. In the image obtained after the
339: self-calibration iterations, the main phase calibrator is found to be
340: slightly extended. To take this into account, the final global fringe
341: fitting part of the reduction was repeated using the image of the main
342: phase calibrator as a model instead of assuming it to be a point
343: source. Note that a different phase calibrator model was produced for
344: each epoch to account for possible small changes in the main
345: calibrator structure from epoch to epoch. The solutions obtained after
346: repeating this final step were edited for bad points and applied to
347: the astronomical targets and to the main and secondary calibrators.
348:
349: The astrometry precision of VLBI observations such as those presented
350: here, depends critically on the quality of the phase
351: calibration. Systematic errors, unremoved by the standard calibration
352: procedures described above, usually dominate the phase calibration
353: error budget, and limit the astrometric precision achieved to several
354: times the value expected theoretically (e.g.\ Fomalont 1999, Pradel et
355: al.\ 2006). At the frequency of the present observations, the main
356: sources of systematic errors are inaccuracies in the troposphere model
357: used, as well as clock, antenna and {\it a priori} source position
358: errors. These effects combine to produce a systematic phase difference
359: between the calibrator and the target, causing position shifts. One
360: effective strategy to measure and correct these systematic errors
361: consists of including observations of more than one phase calibrator
362: chosen to surround the target (Fomalont \& Kogan 2005). This allows
363: phase gradients around the source due to errors in the troposphere
364: model or related to uncertainties in the cataloged position of the
365: calibrators, to be measured and corrected. This strategy was applied
366: to our observations using the three secondary calibrators mentioned
367: earlier (Fig.\ 1), and resulted in significant improvements in the
368: final phase calibration and image quality.
369:
370: Because of the time spent on the calibrators, only about 5 of the 9
371: hours of telescope time allocated to each of our observations were
372: actually spent on source. Once calibrated, the visibilities were
373: imaged with a pixel size of 50 $\mu$as after weights intermediate
374: between natural and uniform (ROBUST = 0 in AIPS) were applied. This
375: resulted in typical r.m.s.\ noise levels of 50--80$\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$
376: (Tab.\ 1). Both sources were detected with a signal to noise ratio
377: better than 10 at each epoch (Tab.\ 1). The source absolute positions
378: at each epoch (also listed in Tab.\ 1) were determined using a 2D
379: Gaussian fitting procedure (task JMFIT in AIPS). This task provides an
380: estimate of the position error (columns 3 and 5 of Tab.\ 1) based on
381: the expected theoretical astrometric precision of an interferometer:
382:
383: \begin{equation}
384: \sigma = {\lambda \over 2 \pi B} {1 \over SNR}, \label{error}
385: \end{equation}
386:
387: \noindent where $\lambda$ is the wavelength, $B$ the baseline, and
388: $SNR$ the image signal-to-noise ratio (Thompson et al.\ 1986). In
389: spite of the extra calibration steps taken to improve the phase
390: calibration, uncorrected systematic errors still exist, and must be
391: added quadratically to the values deduced from Eq.\ 1. These remaining
392: systematic errors are difficult to estimate {\it a priori}, and may
393: depend on the structure of the source under consideration. Here, we
394: will estimate these systematic effects from the fits to the data (see
395: below).
396:
397: \clearpage
398: \begin{figure*}
399: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,angle=270]{f2.eps}}
400: \caption{Measured positions and best fit for (a) Hubble 4, and (b)
401: HDE~283572. The observed positions are shown as ellipses, the size of
402: which represents the error bars.}
403: \end{figure*}
404:
405: \begin{figure*}
406: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{f3.eps}}
407: \caption{Post-fit residuals for Hubble 4 (left) and HDE~283572 (right)
408: in right ascension (top) and declination (bottom).}
409: \end{figure*}
410: \clearpage
411:
412: \section{Results}
413:
414: The displacement of the sources on the celestial sphere is the
415: combination of their trigonometric parallax ($\pi$) and proper motions
416: ($\mu$). The reference epoch was taken at the mean epoch of each
417: series of observations: JD 24353500 ($\equiv$ 2005.355) for bothy
418: sources. Since the sources considered here appear to be isolated, we
419: considered linear and uniform proper motions. The astrometric
420: parameters were calculated using the SVD-decomposition fitting scheme
421: described by Loinard et al.\ (2007). The necessary barycentric
422: coordinates of the Earth, as well as the Julian date of each
423: observation were calculated using the Multi-year Interactive Computer
424: Almanac (MICA) distributed as a CDROM by the US Naval
425: Observatory. They are given explicitly in Tab.\ 2 for all epochs and
426: sources. The best fits give the following parameters:
427:
428: \begin{eqnarray}
429: \alpha_{J2005.355} & = & \mbox{ \dechms{04}{18}{47}{032414} } ~ \pm ~ \mbox{ \mmsec{0}{000001} } \nonumber \\%
430: \delta_{J2005.355} & = & \mbox{ \decdms{28}{20}{07}{3792} } ~ \pm ~ \mbox{ \msec{0}{0002} } \nonumber \\%
431: \mu_\alpha & = & 4.30 ~ \pm ~ 0.05 ~ \mbox{mas yr$^{-1}$} \nonumber \\%
432: \mu_\delta & = & -28.9 ~ \pm ~ 0.3 ~ \mbox{mas yr$^{-1}$} \nonumber \\%
433: \pi & = & 7.53 ~ \pm ~ 0.03 ~ \mbox{mas,} \nonumber
434: \end{eqnarray}
435:
436: \noindent
437: and
438:
439: \begin{eqnarray}
440: \alpha_{J2005.355} & = & \mbox{ \dechms{04}{21}{58}{852030} } ~ \pm ~ \mbox{ \mmsec{0}{00002} } \nonumber \\%
441: \delta_{J2005.355} & = & \mbox{ \decdms{28}{18}{06}{37128} } ~ \pm ~ \mbox{ \msec{0}{00005} } \nonumber \\%
442: \mu_\alpha & = & 8.88 ~ \pm ~ 0.06 ~ \mbox{mas yr$^{-1}$} \nonumber \\%
443: \mu_\delta & = & -26.6 ~ \pm ~ 0.1 ~ \mbox{mas yr$^{-1}$} \nonumber \\%
444: \pi & = & 7.78 ~ \pm ~ 0.04 ~ \mbox{mas,} \nonumber
445: \end{eqnarray}
446:
447: \noindent for Hubble 4 and HDE~283572, respectively. The measured
448: parallaxes correspond to distances of 132.8 $\pm$ 0.5 pc for Hubble 4,
449: and 128.5 $\pm$ 0.6 pc for HDE~283572. The post-fit rms (dominated by
450: the remaining systematic errors mentioned at the end of Sect.\ 2) is
451: quite good for HDE~283572: 60 $\mu$as and 90 $\mu$as in right
452: ascension and declination, respectively. For Hubble 4, on the other
453: hand, the residual is good in right ascension (40 $\mu$as), but large
454: in declination (240 $\mu$as). To obtain a reduced $\chi^2$ of one both
455: in right ascension and declination, one must add quadratically 3.1
456: microseconds of time and 340 microseconds of arc to the formal errors
457: delivered by JMFIT for Hubble 4, and 4.3 microseconds of time and 115
458: microseconds of arc for HDE~283572. All the errors quoted in the paper
459: include these systematic contributions.
460:
461: The origin of the large declination residual for Hubble 4 (which does
462: not affect strongly the parallax determination, because the latter is
463: dominated by the right ascension measurements) is not entirely
464: clear. The fact that the residual is only (or, at least, mostly)
465: detected in declination (Fig.\ 3) would suggest a calibration issue.
466: Indeed, astrometric fitting of phase-referenced VLBI observations is
467: usually worse in declination than in right ascension (e.g.\ Fig.\ 1 in
468: Chatterjee et al.\ 2004) as a result of residual zenith phase delay
469: errors (Reid et al.\ 1999). We consider this possibility fairly
470: unlikely here, however, because such a problem would have been
471: detected during the multi-source calibration, and because the
472: observations and reduction of Hubble 4 and HDE~283572 (which does not
473: appear to be affected by any calibration issue) were performed
474: following identical protocols and over the same period of
475: time. Another element that argues against a calibration problem is
476: that the large residual is not the result of one particularly
477: discrepant observation: in addition to the fit mentioned above where
478: all 6 observations of Hubble 4 are taken into account, we made 5 fits
479: where we sequentially discarded one of the epochs. All 5 fits gave
480: similar astrometric parameters, and a similarly large declination
481: residual. Thus, we argue that this large residual might be real,
482: rather than related to a calibration problem. At the distance of
483: Hubble 4, 240 $\mu$as correspond to 0.032 AU, or about 7 \Rsun. Hubble
484: 4 is estimated to have a radius of about 3.4 \Rsun\ (Johns-Krull et
485: al.\ 2004), so the amplitude of the residual is just about 2
486: $R_*$. Baring this figure in mind, at least two mechanisms could
487: potentially explain the large declination residual: (i) the
488: magnetosphere of Hubble 4 could be somewhat more extended than its
489: photosphere, and the residuals could reflect variations in the
490: structure of the magnetosphere; (ii) Hubble 4 could have a companion,
491: and the residuals could reflect the corresponding reflex motion. Let
492: us examine the pros and cons of these two possibilities.
493:
494: If the residuals were related to a variable extended magnetosphere,
495: one would expect the emission to be occasionally somewhat extended.
496: Interestingly, Phillips et al.\ (1991) reported that Hubble 4 was
497: slightly resolved in their VLBI data, and we find it to be resolved
498: also in at least two of our own observations. On the other hand, if
499: the emission were related to variations in the magnetosphere, one
500: would expect to see variations with the periodicity of the rotational
501: period of the star (about 12/sin{\it i} days --Johns-Krull et al.\
502: 2004). Given that the separation between our successive observations
503: is typically three months, we would expect the residuals to be
504: essentially random. Instead, those residuals seem to show a
505: periodicity of about 1.2 years (Fig.\ 3b). This would be more
506: consistent with our alternative proposal that the residuals be related
507: to the reflex motion of Hubble 4 due to the presence of an unseen
508: companion. The semi-major axis corresponding to a period of 1.2 yr and
509: a mass of 0.7 \Msun\ (see below) is just about 1 AU. Since the ratio
510: between the amplitude of the reflex motion and that of the orbital
511: path is the inverse of the ratio between the mass of the primary and
512: that of the companion, the mass of the companion would have to be
513: 0.7(0.032/1) = 0.02 \Msun. The companion would then have to be a very
514: low-mass star, or a brown dwarf. Note, however, that the residuals are
515: relatively poorly constrained with the existing data, and that
516: additional observations aimed --in particular-- at confirming the
517: periodicity in the residuals will be needed to resolve this issue.
518:
519: \section{Discussion}
520:
521: \subsection{Distance to the Taurus association}
522:
523: HDE~283572 was one of the few Taurus members with a parallax estimate
524: from Hipparcos ($\pi$ = 7.81 $\pm$ 1.30 mas; $d$ = 128$^{+26}_{-18}$
525: pc; Bertout et al.\ 1999). The present determination is well within
526: 1$\sigma$ of the Hipparcos value, but more that one order of magnitude
527: more precise. Bertout \& Genova (2006) estimated the distance to both
528: Hubble 4 ($\pi$ = 8.12 $\pm$ 1.5 mas; $d$ = 123$^{+28}_{-29}$ pc) and
529: HDE~283572 ($\pi$ = 7.64 $\pm$ 1.05 mas; $d$ = 131$^{+21}_{-26}$ pc)
530: using a modified convergent point method. Again, our values are within
531: 1$\sigma$ of these determinations, but more than one order of
532: magnitude more precise. Only two other Taurus members have VLBI-based
533: distance determinations: T Tau ($\pi$ = 6.82 $\pm$ 0.03 mas; $d$ =
534: 146.7 $\pm$ 0.6 pc; Loinard et al.\ 2007) and V773 Tau ($\pi$ = 6.74
535: $\pm$ 0.25 mas; 148.4$^{+5.7}_{-5.3}$ pc; Lestrade et al.\ 1999). The
536: weighted mean of these four values is $\bar{\pi}$ = 7.30 mas
537: ($\bar{d}$ = 137.0 pc) and the r.m.s.\ dispersion about that mean 0.45
538: mas ($\equiv$ 9 pc). Although the number of sources with VLBI
539: distances remains small, we argue that the mean value represents a
540: good estimate of the mean distance to the Taurus association, and that
541: the dispersion provides a good guess of its depth. Note, however, that
542: the latter value was calculated as a dispersion; the corresponding
543: full width at half maximum (which may represent a better estimate of
544: the full depth of the complex) is 21 pc. In comparison, the angular
545: size of Taurus projected on the plane of the sky is about 10$^\circ$,
546: corresponding to about 23 parsecs at that distance. The significant
547: depth of the complex implies, in particular, that however well
548: measured the mean distance to Taurus may be, using it indiscriminately
549: for all Taurus members will result in systematic errors that may be as
550: large as 15\%. For higher precision, accurate individual distances to
551: a larger sample of Taurus members will be needed. VLBI measurements
552: such as those presented here most probably represent the best hope of
553: obtaining such a large sample in the near future.
554:
555: %\begin{landscape}
556: \clearpage
557: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllll}
558: \tablewidth{0pt}
559: \rotate
560: \tablecaption{Space velocity for the 4 Taurus sources with VLBI-based distance determinations}
561: \tablehead{
562: \colhead{Source} &
563: \colhead{} &
564: \colhead{$V_r$ (km s$^{-1}$)} &
565: \colhead{$V_\alpha$ (km s$^{-1}$)} &
566: \colhead{$V_\delta$ (km s$^{-1}$)} &
567: \colhead{$V_\ell$ (km s$^{-1}$)} &
568: \colhead{$V_b$ (km s$^{-1}$)} &
569: \colhead{References\tablenotemark{a}}}
570: \startdata
571: Hubble 4 & Observed & 15.0 $\pm$ 1.7 & 2.71 $\pm$ 0.03 & --18.2 $\pm$ 0.2 & 15.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & --10.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1,2 \\%
572: & Expected & 9.82 & 1.28 & --8.21 & 6.84 & --4.71\\%
573: HDE~283572 & Observed & 15.0 $\pm$ 1.5 & 5.41 $\pm$ 0.04 & --16.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 15.55 $\pm$ 0.08 & --7.07 $\pm$ 0.05 & 1,3\\%
574: & Expected & 9.88 & 1.12 & --8.21 & 6.78 & --4.77\\%
575: T Tau\tablenotemark{b} & Observed & 19.1 $\pm$ 1.2 & 8.59 $\pm$ 0.04 & --8.90 $\pm$ 0.06 & 12.35 $\pm$ 0.05 & +0.69 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2,4\\%
576: & Expected & 11.35 & 1.22 & --6.53 & 5.74 & --3.34\\%
577: V773 Tau\tablenotemark{c} & Observed & 13.8 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.2 & --16.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 12.0 $\pm$ 0.5 & --11.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 5,6\\%
578: & Expected & 9.71 & 1.48 & --8.16 & 6.89 & --4.62
579: \enddata
580: \tablenotetext{b}{1=This work; 2=Hartmann et al.\ 1986; 3=Walter et al.\ 1988; 4=Loinard et al.\ 2007; 5=Welty 1995; 6=Lestrade et al.\ 1999.}
581: \tablenotetext{b}{The radial velocity and proper motions used here is those of T Tau N.
582: The radial velocities for T Tau Sa and T Tau Sb are available in Duch\^ene et al.\ (2002)
583: and are very similar.}
584: \tablenotetext{c}{The radial velocity used here is that of the center of mass of the spectroscopic binary V773 Tau A+B.
585: \vspace{1cm}}
586: \end{deluxetable}
587: \clearpage
588: %\end{landscape}
589:
590: \begin{figure}
591: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth,angle=270]{f4.eps}}
592: \caption{Positions and proper motions of the 4 sources in Taurus
593: with VLBI distance measurements over-imposed on the CO integrated
594: intensity map of Dame et al.\ (2001).}
595: \end{figure}
596:
597: \clearpage
598:
599: \subsection{Kinematics}
600:
601: The tangential velocity of the four sources mentioned in the previous
602: section (Hubble 4, HDE~283572, T Tau and V773 Tau) can be deduced from
603: their measured distances and proper motions. Also, for these four
604: sources, radial velocities are available from the literature, so their
605: complete velocity vectors can be reconstructed (Tab.\ 3, Fig.\
606: 4). Hubble 4 and HDE~283572, which are very close on the plane of the
607: sky and are at very similar distances also have very similar space
608: velocities. This strongly suggests that they belong to the same
609: sub-group (but see below). V773 Tau, which in projection also appears
610: near Hubble 4 and HDE~283572 but is at a significantly different
611: distance, has a somewhat different space velocity. Not surprisingly, T
612: Tau, at the south of the Taurus complex, has a significantly different
613: velocity.
614:
615: The measured radial and tangential velocities can be compared to the
616: values expected from the differential rotation of the Galaxy. The
617: proper motions determined with the VLBA are measured with respect to
618: the Sun. To obtain the corresponding values expected theoretically, we
619: adopt a model for the local rotation of the Galaxy where the Oort
620: constants are A = 14.4 and B = --12.0 km s$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-1}$ (Allen
621: 2000) and where the distance from the Sun to the Galactic center is
622: R$_\odot$ = 8.5 kpc. For the peculiar motion of the Sun (required to
623: transform values relative to the local standard of rest [LSR] to the
624: barycentric coordinates provided by the VLBA), we use U$_\odot$; =
625: +9.0, V$_\odot$; = +12.0, and W$_\odot$; = +7.0 km s$^{-1}$ (Allen
626: 2000). Here, we follow the traditional convention where U runs from
627: the Sun to the Galactic center, V is in the Galactic plane,
628: perpendicular to U and positive in the direction of Galactic rotation,
629: and W is perpendicular to the Galactic plane, positive toward the
630: Galactic north pole. It is noteworthy from the comparison between the
631: observed and expected velocities that the Taurus members considered
632: here have very significant peculiar motions (of amplitude $\sim$ 10 km
633: s$^{-1}$). Since our measured values are very similar to the mean
634: radial velocities and proper motions in catalogs of optically selected
635: Taurus members (e.g.\ Ducourant et al.\ 2005; Bertout \& Genova 2006),
636: this large peculiar velocity appears to be characteristic of the
637: entire Taurus complex. This is a notable contrast with the stars in
638: the Orion cluster where the expected and measured mean proper motions
639: agree to better than 0.5 km s$^{-1}$ (G\'omez et al.\ 2005).
640:
641:
642: Section 4.1 and the present kinematics analysis show that if a
643: sufficiently large sample of Taurus members had VLBI-based distance
644: determinations, it would become possible to accurately map the
645: three-dimensional distribution of stars in the complex, as well as
646: their detailed kinematics. Using a dynamical analysis, it would then
647: become possible to estimate the total mass of the complex in a way
648: totally independent of the traditionally used molecular
649: observations. Also, coupled with pre-main sequence evolutionary models
650: (see below), it would become possible to study the space distribution
651: of stars as a function of their age, and thereby reconstruct the
652: history of star-formation in Taurus.
653:
654: \subsection{Physical parameters of the stars}
655:
656: Having measured the distance to two stars in Taurus, we are now in a
657: position to recalculate their luminosities, and place them better on
658: an isochrone. We will use here the pre-main sequence evolutionary
659: models of Siess et al.\ (1997) available on the World Wide Web. The
660: effective temperature of Hubble 4 is 4060 K (Brice\~no et al.\ 2002),
661: and its bolometric luminosity scaled with the present distance
662: determination is 2.7 (132.8/142)$^2$ = 2.4 \Lsun (Brice\~no et al.\
663: 2002). For HDE~283572, the effective temperature is 5770 (G\"udel et
664: al.\ 2007) and the scaled bolometric luminosity 6.5(128.5/140)$^2$ =
665: 5.5 \Lsun. Using these values as inputs for the evolutionary models,
666: we obtain $M$ = 0.7 \Msun, $R$ = 2.9 \Rsun, and $M$ = 1.6 \Msun, $R$ =
667: 2.2 \Rsun, for Hubble 4 and HDE~283572, respectively. The
668: corresponding ages are 0.74 and 9.0 Myr, respectively. This last
669: result is quite surprising because --as mentioned earlier-- Hubble 4
670: and HDE~283572 are very near each other, and share the same
671: kinematics. In these conditions, one would expect them to be
672: coeval. Surprisingly, however, their ages appear to differ by one
673: order of magnitude
674:
675: \section{Conclusions and perspectives}
676:
677: In this article, we have reported multi-epoch VLBA observations of two naked
678: T Tauri stars in the Taurus complex, and used these data to measure their
679: trigonometric parallax and proper motions. Both stars appear to be
680: located at about 130 pc, somewhat nearer than the other two Taurus stars
681: (T Tauri and V773 Tau) with VLBI distance estimates (both are at $\sim$
682: 147 pc). The declination of Hubble 4 shows small but systematic post-fit
683: residuals that may be the result of an extended, time-variable magnetosphere
684: or of the presence of a companion, low-mass star or brown dwarf.
685:
686: Hubble 4 and HDE~283572 appear to share the same kinematics, and
687: most probably belong to the same Taurus sub-group. Surprisingly, however,
688: pre-main sequence evolutionary models suggest that their age differ
689: by an order of magnitude. The mean distance to Taurus obtained by averaging
690: all four existing VLBI-based distance estimates is 137 pc, and the depth
691: of the complex appears to be about 20 pc, very similar to the size of the
692: complex projected on the plane of the sky.
693:
694: It is noteworthy that if observations similar to those presented here were
695: obtained for a significantly larger sample of Taurus members, it would
696: be possible to map the three-dimensional distribution and kinematics of the
697: complex, and establish the history of star-formation in this important
698: nearby star-forming site.
699:
700: \acknowledgements
701: R.M.T., L.L. and L.F.R.\ acknowledge the financial support of DGAPA,
702: UNAM and CONACyT, M\'exico. We are grateful to Tom Dame for sending
703: us a digital version of the integrated CO(1-0) map of Taurus. The
704: National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National
705: Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated
706: Universities, Inc.
707:
708:
709: \begin{thebibliography}{}
710:
711: \bibitem[]{}
712: Allen, C. W. 2000, Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, ed. A. N. Cox
713: (4th ed.; New York: AIP; Springer)
714:
715: \bibitem[Andre et al.(1992)]{1992ApJ...401..667A} Andr\'e, P., Deeney, B.~D.,
716: Phillips, R.~B., \& Lestrade, J.-F.\ 1992, \apj, 401, 667
717:
718: \bibitem[Beasley et al.(2002)]{2002ApJS..141...13B} Beasley, A.~J., Gordon,
719: D., Peck, A.~B., Petrov, L., MacMillan, D.~S., Fomalont, E.~B., \& Ma, C.\
720: 2002, \apjs, 141, 13
721:
722: \bibitem[]{670}
723: Bertout, C., Robichon, N., \& Arenou, F., 1999, A\&A, 352, 574
724:
725: \bibitem[Bertout \& Genova(2006)]{2006A&A...460..499B} Bertout, C., \&
726: Genova, F.\ 2006, \aap, 460, 499
727:
728: \bibitem[]{676}
729: Brice\~no, C., Luhman, K.L., Hartmann, L., et al.\ 2002, ApJ, 580, 317
730:
731: \bibitem[Brisken et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...541..959B} Brisken, W.~F., Benson,
732: J.~M., Beasley, A.~J., Fomalont, E.~B., Goss, W.~M., \& Thorsett, S.~E.\
733: 2000, \apj, 541, 959
734:
735: \bibitem[Brisken et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...571..906B} Brisken, W.~F., Benson,
736: J.~M., Goss, W.~M., \& Thorsett, S.~E.\ 2002, \apj, 571, 906
737:
738: \bibitem[Chatterjee et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...604..339C} Chatterjee, S.,
739: Cordes, J.~M., Vlemmings, W.~H.~T., Arzoumanian, Z., Goss, W.~M., \& Lazio,
740: T.~J.~W.\ 2004, \apj, 604, 339
741:
742: \bibitem[Dame et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...547..792D} Dame, T.~M., Hartmann, D.,
743: \& Thaddeus, P.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 792
744:
745: \bibitem[Duch{\^e}ne et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...568..771D} Duch{\^e}ne, G.,
746: Ghez, A.~M., \& McCabe, C.\ 2002, \apj, 568, 771
747:
748: \bibitem[]{}
749: Ducourant, C., Teixeira, R., P\'eri\'e, J.P., Lecampion, J.F., Guibert,
750: J.; Sartori, M.J.\ 2005, A\&A, 438, 769
751:
752: \bibitem[]{689}
753: Dulk, G.A., 1985, ARA\&A, 23, 169
754:
755: \bibitem[Elias(1978)]{1978ApJ...224..857E} Elias, J.~H.\ 1978a, \apj, 224,
756: 857
757:
758: \bibitem[Elias(1978)]{1978ApJ...224..453E} Elias, J.~H.\ 1978b, \apj, 224,
759: 453
760:
761: \bibitem[Evans et al.(2003)]{2003PASP..115..965E} Evans, N.~J., II, et al.\
762: 2003, \pasp, 115, 965
763:
764: \bibitem[]{701}
765: Feigelson, E.D., \& Montmerle, T., 1999, ARAA, 37, 363
766:
767: \bibitem[Fomalont(1999)]{1999ASPC..180..463F} Fomalont, E.~B.\ 1999,
768: Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, 180, 463
769:
770: \bibitem[]{707}
771: Fomalont, E.B., \& Kogan, L., 2005, AIPS Memo 111
772:
773: \bibitem[G{\'o}mez et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...635.1166G} G{\'o}mez, L.,
774: Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, L.~F., Loinard, L., Lizano, S., Poveda, A., \& Allen, C.\
775: 2005, \apj, 63
776:
777: \bibitem[Greisen(2003)]{Gre03} Greisen, E.W.\ 2003, in
778: Information Handling in Astronomy -- Historical Vistas, ed.\ A.\ Heck
779: (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 109
780:
781: \bibitem[G{\"u}del et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...468..353G} G{\"u}del, M., et
782: al.\ 2007, \aap, 468, 353
783:
784: \bibitem[Hachisuka et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...645..337H} Hachisuka, K., et
785: al.\ 2006, \apj, 645, 337
786:
787: \bibitem[Hartmann et al.(1986)]{1986ApJ...309..275H} Hartmann, L., Hewett,
788: R., Stahler, S., \& Mathieu, R.~D.\ 1986, \apj, 309, 275
789:
790: \bibitem[]{}
791: Hirota, T., et al.\ PASJ, in press (http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3792)
792:
793: \bibitem[]{719}
794: Johns-Krull, C.M., Valenti, J.A., \& Saar, S.H., 2004, ApJ, 617, 1204
795:
796: \bibitem[Kenyon et al.(1994)]{1994AJ....108.1872K} Kenyon, S.~J.,
797: Dobrzycka, D., \& Hartmann, L.\ 1994, \aj, 108, 1872
798:
799: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Hartmann(1995)]{1995ApJS..101..117K} Kenyon, S.~J., \&
800: Hartmann, L.\ 1995, \apjs, 101, 117
801:
802: \bibitem[Klein et al.(2007)]{2007prpl.conf...99K} Klein, R.~I., Inutsuka,
803: S.-I., Padoan, P., \& Tomisaka, K.\ 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 99
804:
805: \bibitem[Knude \& Hog(1998)]{1998A&A...338..897K} Knude, J., \& Hog, E.\
806: 1998, \aap, 338, 897
807:
808: \bibitem[]{734}
809: Lestrade, J.-F., Preston, R.A., Jones, D.L., et al., 1999, A\&A, 344, 1014
810:
811: \bibitem[Loinard et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...619L.179L} Loinard, L.,
812: Mioduszewski, A.~J., Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, L.~F., Gonz{\'a}lez, R.~A.,
813: Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, M.~I., \& Torres, R.~M.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L179
814:
815:
816: \bibitem[Loinard et al.(2007)]{} Loinard, L., Torres, R.~M.,
817: Mioduszewski, A.~J., Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, L.~F., Gonz{\'a}lez, R.~A.,
818: Lachaume, R., V\'azquez, V., \& Gonz\'alez, E.\ 2007, ApJ, in press
819:
820: \bibitem[O'Neal et al.(1990)]{1990AJ....100.1610O} O'Neal, D., Feigelson,
821: E.~D., Mathieu, R.~D., \& Myers, P.~C.\ 1990, \aj, 100, 1610
822:
823: \bibitem[]{744}
824: Perryman, M.A.C., Lindegren, L., Kovalevsky, J., et al., 1997, A\&A, 323, L49
825:
826: \bibitem[]{747}
827: Phillips, R.B., Lonsdale, C.J., \& Feigelson, E.D., 1991, 382, 261
828:
829: \bibitem[Pradel et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...452.1099P} Pradel, N., Charlot, P.,
830: \& Lestrade, J.-F.\ 2006, \aap, 452, 1099
831:
832: \bibitem[Reid et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...524..816R} Reid, M.~J., Readhead,
833: A.~C.~S., Vermeulen, R.~C., \& Treuhaft, R.~N.\ 1999, \apj, 524, 816
834:
835: \bibitem[]{}
836: Sandstrom K.M., et al., ApJ, in press (http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2361)
837:
838: \bibitem[Seidelmann(1992)]{1992exaa.book.....S} Seidelmann, P.~K.\ 1992,
839: {\it Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac}, University
840: Science Books, ISBN 0-935702-68-7, 752pp, 1992
841:
842: \bibitem[]{760}
843: Siess, L., Dufour, E., \& Forestini, M.\ 1997, A\&A, 358, 593
844:
845: \bibitem[]{763}
846: Skinner, L.L., 1993, ApJ, 408, 660
847:
848: \bibitem[Thompson et al.(1986)]{1986isra.book.....T} Thompson, A.~R.,
849: Moran, J.~M., \& Swenson, G.~W.\ 1986, {\it Interferometry and synthesis
850: in radio astronomy}, New York, Wiley-Interscience, 1986
851:
852: \bibitem[]{770}
853: Walter, F.M., Brown, A., Linsky, J.L., et al.\ 1987, ApJ, 314, 297
854:
855: \bibitem[Walter et al.(1988)]{1988AJ.....96..297W} Walter, F.~M., Brown,
856: A., Mathieu, R.~D., Myers, P.~C., \& Vrba, F.~J.\ 1988, \aj, 96, 297
857:
858: \bibitem[Welty(1995)]{1995AJ....110..776W} Welty, A.~D.\ 1995, \aj, 110,
859: 776
860:
861: \bibitem[White et al.(2007)]{2007prpl.conf..117W} White, R.~J., Greene,
862: T.~P., Doppmann, G.~W., Covey, K.~R., \& Hillenbrand, L.~A.\ 2007,
863: Protostars and Planets V, 117
864:
865: \bibitem[Xu et al.(2006)]{2006Sci...311...54X} Xu, Y., Reid, M.~J., Zheng,
866: X.~W., \& Menten, K.~M.\ 2006, Science, 311, 54
867:
868: \end{thebibliography}
869:
870:
871: \end{document}
872:
873:
874:
875: (Bertout et al. \ 1999)
876:
877:
878:
879: