1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
3:
4:
5: %\usepackage{epsfig}
6: %\usepackage{lscape}
7: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
8: %\usepackage{mathptmx}
9:
10: %\received{20 October 2004}
11: %\accepted{21 October 2004}
12:
13:
14: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.}
15: \newcommand{\hii}{\mbox{\ion{H}{2}}}
16: \newcommand{\lya}{\mbox{Ly$\alpha$}}
17: \newcommand{\lyb}{\mbox{Ly$\beta$}}
18: \newcommand{\taulyc}{\mbox{$\tau_{LyC}$}}
19: \newcommand{\alphaalpha}{\mbox{$\alpha^{eff}_{H\alpha}$}}
20: \newcommand{\alphaB}{\mbox{$\alpha_{B}$}}
21: \newcommand{\kms}{\mbox{$\,$km s$^{-1}$}}
22: \newcommand{\thC}{$\theta^1\,$C~Ori}
23: \newcommand{\thA}{$\theta^2\,$A~Ori}
24: \newcommand{\subsun}{M$_{\hbox{$\odot$}}$}
25: \newcommand{\peryr}{yr$^{-1}$}
26: \newcommand{\HST}{{\em HST\/}}
27: \newcommand{\Av}{A_V}
28: \newcommand{\tevap}{t_{\rm e}}
29: \newcommand{\tdyn}{t_{\rm d}}
30: \newcommand{\rcrit}{r_{\rm cr}}
31: \newcommand{\smy}{\mbox{M}_\odot \, \mbox{yr}^{-1}}
32: \newcommand{\Ha}{H$\alpha$}
33: \newcommand{\Hb}{H$\beta$}
34: \newcommand{\SII}{[\ion{S}{2}]\ 6731\AA}
35: \newcommand{\NII}{[\ion{N}{2}]\ 6583\AA}
36: \newcommand{\OI}{[\ion{O}{1}]\ 6300\AA}
37: \newcommand{\HeI}{\ion{He}{1}\ 5676\AA}
38: \newcommand{\OIII}{[\ion{O}{3}]\ 4959\AA}
39: \newcommand{\SIII}{[\ion{S}{3}]\ 6312\AA}
40: \newcommand{\SIIshort}{[\ion{S}{2}]}
41: \newcommand{\NIIshort}{[\ion{N}{2}]}
42: \newcommand{\OIshort}{[\ion{O}{1}]}
43: \newcommand{\HeIshort}{\ion{He}{1}}
44: \newcommand{\OIIIshort}{[\ion{O}{3}]}
45: \newcommand{\SIIIshort}{[\ion{S}{3}]}
46: \newcommand{\mysec}[2]{$#1\mbox{$^{\rm ''}\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}
47: \newcommand{\inthms}[3]{$#1^{\rm h}#2^{\rm m}#3^{\rm s}$}
48: \newcommand{\dechms}[4]{$#1^{\rm h}#2^{\rm m}#3\mbox{$^{\rm s}\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#4$}
49: \newcommand{\intdms}[3]{$#1^{\circ}#2'#3''$}
50: \newcommand{\decdms}[4]{$#1^{\circ}#2'#3\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#4$}
51: \newcommand{\msec}[2]{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}
52: \newcommand{\mmsec}[2]{$#1\mbox{$^s\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}
53: \newcommand{\mdeg}[2]{$#1\mbox{$^\circ \mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}
54: \newcommand{\mtsec}[2]{$#1\mbox{$^{\rm s}\mskip-7.6mu .\,$}#2$}
55: \newcommand{\tmb}{\mbox{T$_{\rm mb}$}}
56: \newcommand{\HII}{\mbox{H\,{\sc ii}}}
57: \newcommand{\dtco}{D$_{2}$CO}
58: \newcommand{\Htwo}{H$_{2}$}
59: \newcommand{\hdco}{HDCO}
60: \newcommand{\htco}{H$_{2}$CO}
61: \newcommand{\httco}{H$_{2}$$^{13}$CO}
62: \newcommand{\dttco}{D$_{2}$$^{13}$CO}
63: \newcommand{\nhtd}{NH$_{2}$D}
64: \newcommand{\ndth}{ND$_{2}$H}
65: \newcommand{\nht}{NH$_{3}$}
66: \newcommand{\kmps}{km s$^{-1}$}
67: \newcommand{\Lsun}{L$_{\odot}$}
68: \newcommand{\Msun}{M$_{\odot}$}
69: \newcommand{\Rsun}{R$_{\odot}$}
70: \newcommand{\tp}[2]{#1$\times$10$^{-{#2}}$}
71: \newcommand\lax{${_<\atop^{\sim}}$}
72: \newcommand\gax{${_>\atop^{\sim}}$}
73: \newcommand{\dcop}{DCO$^+$}
74: \newcommand{\hcop}{HCO$^+$}
75: \newcommand{\htcop}{H$^{13}$CO$^+$}
76: \newcommand{\val}[3]{$#1\mskip3mu_{-#2}\mskip-30mu^{+#3}$}
77: \newcommand{\vall}[3]{$#1\mskip3mu_{-#2}\mskip-37mu^{+#3}$}
78: \newcommand{\valll}[3]{$#1\mskip3mu_{-#2}\mskip-44mu^{+#3}$}
79: \newcommand{\frii}{FR{\sc \,ii}}
80: \newcommand{\sbeamp}[5]{{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$} $\times$ {$#3\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#4$}; $+#5^\circ$}
81: \newcommand{\sbeamm}[5]{{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$} $\times$ {$#3\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#4$}; $-#5^\circ$}
82: \newcommand{\offsetp}[3]{{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}; $+#3^\circ$}
83: \newcommand{\offsetm}[3]{{$#1\mbox{$''\mskip-7.6mu.\,$}#2$}; $-#3^\circ$}
84:
85:
86: \begin{document}
87:
88:
89: \title{A Preliminary VLBA Distance to the Core of Ophiuchus, with an Accuracy of 4\%}
90:
91: \author{Laurent Loinard\footnote{Centro de Radiostronom\'{\i}a y
92: Astrof\'{\i}sica, Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico,
93: Apartado Postal 72--3 (Xangari), 58089 Morelia, Michoac\'an, M\'exico;
94: l.loinard@astrosmo.unam.mx}, Rosa M.\ Torres$^1$, Amy J.\
95: Mioduszewski\footnote{National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Array
96: Operations Center, 1003 Lopezville Road, Socorro, NM 87801, USA},
97: and Luis F.\ Rodr\'{\i}guez$^1$}
98:
99:
100:
101: \begin{abstract}
102:
103: The non-thermal 3.6 cm radio continuum emission from the young stars
104: S1 and DoAr21 in the core of Ophiuchus, has been observed with the
105: Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) at 6 and 7 epochs, respectively,
106: between June 2005 and August 2006. The typical separation between
107: successive observations was 2 to 3 months. Thanks to the remarkably
108: accurate astrometry delivered by the VLBA, the trajectory described
109: by both stars on the plane of the sky could be traced very
110: precisely, and modeled as the superposition of their trigonometric
111: parallax and a uniform proper motion. The best fits yield distances
112: to S1 and DoAr21 of 116.9$^{+7.2}_{-6.4}$ pc and 121.9$^{+5.8}_{-5.3}$ pc,
113: respectively. Combining these results, we estimate the mean
114: distance to the Ophiuchus core to be 120.0$^{+4.5}_{-4.2}$ pc, a value
115: consistent with several recent indirect determinations, but with a
116: significantly improved accuracy of 4\%. Both S1 and DoAr21 happen to
117: be members of tight binary systems, but our observations are not
118: frequent enough to properly derive the corresponding orbital
119: parameters. This could be done with additional data, however, and
120: would result in a significantly improved accuracy on the distance
121: determination.
122:
123: \end{abstract}
124:
125:
126: \keywords{Astrometry --- Stars: individual (S1, DoAr21) --- Radiation
127: mechanisms: non-thermal --- Magnetic fields --- stars: formation ---
128: Binaries: general}
129:
130: \section{Introduction}
131:
132: Ophiuchus is one of the most active regions of star-formation within a
133: few hundred parsecs of the Sun (e.g.\ Lada \& Lada 2003). It has
134: played an important role in the development of our understanding of
135: star-formation, and remains an important benchmark for this field of
136: research. Indeed, it has been one of the key targets of the Spitzer
137: c2d legacy program (Padgett et al.\ 2007); and has been observed in
138: detail at numerous other wavelengths, including X-rays (Ozawa et al.\
139: 2005, Gagn\'e et al.\ 2004), near-infrared (e.g.\ Haisch et al.\ 2002,
140: Duch\^ene et al.\ 2004, and references therein), sub-millimeter (Motte
141: et al.\ 1998, Johnstone et al.\ 2004), and radio (e.g.\ Andr\'e et
142: al.\ 1987, Leous et al.\ 1991).
143:
144: The detailed analysis of this wealth of observational data has been
145: somewhat hampered by the relatively large uncertainty on the distance
146: to the Ophiuchus complex. Traditionally assumed to be at 165 pc (Chini
147: 1981), it has recently been suggested to be somewhat closer. For
148: example, de Geus et al.\ (1989) found a mean photometric distance of
149: 125 $\pm$ 25 pc. Knude \& Hog (1998), who examined the reddening of
150: stars in the direction of Ophiuchus as a function of their Hipparcos
151: distances, also found a clear extinction jump at 120 pc. Using a
152: similar method, M.\ Lombardi et al.\ (in prep.) also find a distance
153: of about 120 pc for the Ophiuchus core. Finally, Mamajek (2007)
154: identified reflection nebulae within 5$^\circ$ of the center of
155: Ophiuchus, and obtained the trigonometric parallax of the illuminating
156: stars from the Hipparcos catalog. From the average of these Hipparcos
157: parallaxes, he obtains a mean distance to Ophiuchus of 135 $\pm$ 8 pc.
158:
159: This latter result is based on parallax measurements, but considers a
160: fairly large area around Ophiuchus. It could, therefore, include
161: objects unrelated to Ophiuchus itself. The former results are
162: restricted to regions more concentrated on Ophiuchus, but they are
163: based on indirect distance determinations. Here, we will present
164: measurements of the trigonometric parallax of two young stars (S1 and
165: DoAr21) directly associated with the Ophiuchus core. This will allow
166: us to estimate directly the distance to this important region of
167: star-formation.
168:
169:
170: \section{Observed sources}
171:
172: The star S1 (of spectral type B4, $M$ $\sim$ 6 \Msun) is among the
173: brightest red and near-infrared objects in Ophiuchus (Grasdalen et
174: al.\ 1973). It is also the brightest far-infrared member of the
175: cluster (Fazio et al.\ 1976), a very bright X-ray source (ROX 14
176: --Montmerle et al.\ 1983), and the brightest steady radio stellar
177: object in Ophiuchus\footnote{DoAr21 --as shown by Feigelson \&
178: Montmerle (1985), and as we shall confirm below-- can occasionally
179: become brighter than S1.} (Leous et al.\ 1991). S1 is fairly
180: heavily obscured ($A_V$ $\sim$ 10), and there is clear evidence for an
181: interaction between S1 and the dense gas associated with Oph A, and
182: traced by DCO$^+$ emission (Loren et al.\ 1990). Moreover, the age of
183: the \HII\ region excited by S1 is estimated to be about 5,000 yr
184: (Andr\'e et al.\ 1988). All this demonstrates that S1 can safely be
185: assumed to be a member of the Ophiuchus core.
186:
187: DoAr21 (Dolidze-Arakelyan 21) is a somewhat less massive star ($\sim$
188: 2.2 \Msun) of spectral type K1 (E.\ Jensen et al., in prep.). Like S1,
189: it is fairly obscured ($A_V$ $\sim$ 6--7), and probably younger than
190: 10$^6$ yr. It is associated with a bright X-ray source (ROX 8
191: --Montmerle et al.\ 1983), and with a strongly variable radio source
192: (Feigelson \& Montmerle 1985). Although it has long been classified as
193: a naked T Tauri star (e.g.\ Andr\'e et al.\ 1990), it was recently
194: found to show a substantial infrared excess at 25 $\mu$m (Jensen et
195: al.\ ibid) suggestive of a circumstellar disk. Given its youth, and
196: location in the Ophiuchus core, DoAr21 is almost certainly also a {\it
197: bona fide} member of the Ophiuchus complex.
198:
199: As mentioned above, both S1 and DoAr21 are fairly strong radio
200: sources. Indeed, both have been detected at 6 cm in previous Very
201: Long Baseline Interferometry experiments: S1 with a flux density of
202: 6--9 mJy (Andr\'e et al.\ 1991), and DoAr21 with a flux density of
203: nearly 10 mJy (Phillips et al.\ 1991).
204:
205: \section{Observations}
206:
207: In this paper, we will make use of two series of continuum 3.6 cm
208: (8.42 GHz) observations obtained with the VLBA. Six observations of S1
209: were collected between June 2005 and August 2006, and seven
210: observations of DoAr21 were obtained between September 2005 and August
211: 2006 (See Tab.\ 1 for details). Each observation consisted of series
212: of cycles with two minutes spent on source, and one minute spent on
213: the phase-referencing quasar J1625--2527, located 1$^\circ$ south of
214: both targets. J1625--2527 is a very compact extragalactic source whose
215: absolute position ($\alpha_{J2000.0}$ =
216: \dechms{16}{25}{46}{8916},$\delta_{J2000.0}$ =
217: \decdms{-25}{27}{38}{327}) is known to better than 0.5 milli-arcsecond
218: (mas --Beasley et al.\ 2002). The data were edited and calibrated
219: using the Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS --Greisen
220: 2003). The basic data reduction followed the standard VLBA procedures
221: for phase-referenced observations, and was described in detail in
222: Loinard et al.\ (2007). Since the density of compact quasars known
223: around Ophiuchus at the time of our observations was insufficient, we
224: could not apply the multi-source calibration described in Torres et
225: al.\ (2007).
226:
227: Because of the significant overheads that were necessary to properly
228: calibrate the data, only about 2 of the 4 hours of telescope time
229: allocated to each of our observations were actually spent on
230: source. Once calibrated, the visibilities were imaged with a pixel
231: size of 50 $\mu$as after weights intermediate between natural and
232: uniform (ROBUST = 0 in AIPS) were applied. This resulted in typical
233: r.m.s.\ noise levels of 0.1 to 0.3 mJy depending on the weather
234: conditions and source strength (Tab.\ 1). Both S1 and DoAr21 were
235: detected with a signal to noise better than 7 at each epoch (Tab.\ 1).
236:
237: \section{Results, discussions and conclusions}
238:
239: \subsection{Properties of S1}
240:
241: The mean 3.6 cm flux of S1 in our data is 4.8 mJy, and the dispersion
242: about that mean is 1.2 mJy (see Fig.\ 1). This shows that S1 is
243: variable at the level of about 25\% on timescales of months to
244: years. This modest level of variability is certainly not unexpected
245: for a non-thermal source associated with an active stellar
246: magnetosphere (Feigelson \& Montmerle 1999). As mentioned earlier,
247: Andr\'e et al.\ (1991) reported a VLBI detection of S1 at 6 cm. They
248: found --among many other things-- that the source was somewhat
249: resolved in their observations, with a full width at half maximum
250: extension of about 1.7 mas. The radio emission associated with S1 is
251: also found to be resolved in {\em all} six of our observations, with a
252: deconvolved mean full width at half maximum of about 0.95 mas. This
253: is somewhat smaller than the figure reported by Andr\'e et al.\
254: (1991), but we note (i) that our observations and those of Andr\'e et
255: al.\ (1991) were obtained at different wavelengths; and (ii) that at
256: some of our epochs, the size of the emission reached 1.5 mas, whereas
257: at other epochs, it was smaller than 0.5 mas. At the distance of S1
258: (see below), 0.95 mas corresponds to about 24 \Rsun. The diameter of
259: S1 is expected to be about 8.5 \Rsun\ (Andr\'e et al. 1991), so its
260: magnetosphere appears to be on average 3 times more extended than its
261: photosphere.
262:
263: The fact that S1 is resolved, and that its size varies from epoch to
264: epoch likely produces small random shifts in the photocenter of the
265: radio emission with an amplitude of a fraction of the size of the
266: emitting region. The true uncertainties on the position of S1 are,
267: therefore, likely to be somewhat larger than the figures quoted in
268: Tab.\ 1. Another factor that must be taken into account is that S1 is
269: known to be a member of a binary system with a separation of about 20
270: mas (Richichi et al.\ 1994). The companion is inferred to be about 4
271: times dimmer than the primary at K band, so it is likely to be
272: significantly less massive (Richichi et al.\ 1994). If we assume S1 to
273: be a 6 \Msun\ star (as suggested by its B4 spectral type), we expect
274: the orbital period to be about 0.7 yr, and the reflex motion of S1 to
275: be about 1 to 2 mas if the companion is 10 to 20 times less massive
276: than S1. Thus, the amplitude of the reflex motion is expected to be
277: larger than the formal errors on the positions of S1 listed in Tab.\
278: 1.
279:
280: \subsection{Properties of DoAr21}
281:
282: The total radio flux of DoAr21 has long been known to be highly
283: variable (Feigelson \& Montmerle 1985). Our observations certainly
284: confirm this strong variability since the ratio between the highest
285: and the lowest measured flux exceeds 50 (Fig.\ 1). In particular, the
286: flux during our first two observations (10--20 mJy) is systematically
287: about an order of magnitude higher than that (0.4--2 mJy) at any of
288: the following 5 observations. Unfortunately, our time coverage is too
289: coarse to decide whether these first two epochs correspond to two
290: different flares, or to a single long-duration one.
291:
292: The extreme variability of DoAr21, while at odds with the situation in
293: S1, is reminiscent of the case of the spectroscopic binary V773 Tau
294: (e.g.\ Massi et al.\ 2002). In the latter source, Massi et al.\ (2002)
295: showed that the variability had the same periodicity as the orbital
296: motion, with the radio flux being highest at periastron.
297: Interestingly, DoAr21 was found to be double during our second
298: observation\footnote{The position given in Tab.\ 1 is that of the
299: brightest of the two components. The other source is offset by more
300: than 5 mas from its position of the steady component expected from
301: the astrometry fits presented in \S 4.3.}. This suggests that the
302: same mechanism that enhances the radio emission when the two binary
303: components are nearest, might be at work in both objects. The
304: separation between the two components of DoAr21 in our second
305: observation is about 5 mas. This value, of course, corresponds to
306: the projected separation; the actual distance between them must be
307: somewhat larger. Moreover, if the mechanisms at work in DoAr21 and
308: V773 Tau are similar, then DoAr21 must have been near periastron
309: during our second epoch, and the orbit must be somewhat
310: eccentric. As a consequence of these two effects, the semi-major
311: axis of the orbit is likely to be a few times larger than the
312: measured separation between the components at our second epoch,
313: perhaps 10 to 15 mas. At the distance of DoAr21, this corresponds to
314: 1.2 to 1.8 AU. For a mass of 2.2 \Msun\ (see Sect.\ 1), the
315: corresponding orbital period is 0.4 to 1.3 yr, and one would expect
316: the source to oscillate with this kind of periodicity.
317:
318: \subsection{Astrometry}
319:
320: The absolute positions of S1 and DoAr21 (listed in columns 3 and 4 of
321: Tab.\ 1) were determined using a 2D Gaussian fitting procedure (task
322: JMFIT in AIPS). This task provides an estimate of the position errors
323: (also given in columns 3 and 4 of Tab.\ 1) based on the expected
324: theoretical astrometric precision of an interferometer (Condon
325: 1997). Systematic errors, however, usually limit the actual precision
326: of VLBI astrometry to several times this theoretical value (e.g.\
327: Pradel et al.\ 2006, Loinard et al.\ 2007). Moreover, we have just
328: seen that the extended magnetosphere of S1, and the reflex motions of
329: both S1 and DoAr21 are likely to produce significant shifts in the
330: positions of the source photocenters. While the effect of an extended
331: magnetosphere might be to produce a random jitter, the reflex orbital
332: motions ought to generate oscillations with a periodicity equal to
333: that of the orbital motions. Our observations, however, are currently
334: insufficient to properly fit full Keplerian orbits. Instead, in the
335: present paper, we represent the possible systematic calibration errors
336: as well as the jitter due to extended magnetospheres and the
337: oscillations due to reflex motions, by a constant error term (the
338: value of which will be determined below) that we add quadratically to
339: the errors given in Tab.\ 1. The displacements of both S1 and DoAr21
340: on the celestial sphere are then modeled as a combination of their
341: trigonometric parallaxes ($\pi$) and their proper motions
342: ($\mu_\alpha$ and $\mu_\delta$), assumed to be uniform and linear. The
343: astrometric parameters were determined using a least-square fit based
344: on a Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) scheme (see Loinard et al.\
345: 2007 for details). The reference epoch was taken at the mean of each
346: set of observations (JD 2453757.63 $\equiv$ J2006.061 for S1, and JD
347: 2453796.52 $\equiv$ J2006.167 for DoAr21). The best fit for S1 (Fig.\
348: 2a) yields the following astrometric parameters:
349:
350: \begin{eqnarray}
351: \alpha_{J2006.061} & = & \mbox{ \dechms{16}{26}{34}{174127} } ~ \pm ~ \mbox{ \mmsec{0}{000026} } \nonumber \\%
352: \delta_{J2006.061} & = & \mbox{ \decdms{-24}{23}{28}{44498} } ~ \pm ~ \mbox{ \msec{0}{00028} } \nonumber \\%
353: \mu_\alpha \cos \delta & = & -3.88 ~ \pm ~ 0.87 ~ \mbox{mas yr$^{-1}$} \nonumber \\%
354: \mu_\delta & = & -31.55 ~ \pm ~ 0.69 ~ \mbox{mas yr$^{-1}$} \nonumber \\%
355: \pi & = & 8.55 ~ \pm ~ 0.50 ~ \mbox{mas.} \nonumber
356: \end{eqnarray}
357:
358: \noindent
359: For DoAr21, on the other and, we get (Fig.\ 2b):
360:
361: \begin{eqnarray}
362: \alpha_{J2006.167} & = & \mbox{ \dechms{16}{26}{03}{018535} } ~ \pm ~ \mbox{ \mmsec{0}{000020} } \nonumber \\%
363: \delta_{J2006.167} & = & \mbox{ \decdms{-24}{23}{36}{35830} } ~ \pm ~ \mbox{ \msec{0}{00022} } \nonumber \\%
364: \mu_\alpha \cos \delta & = & -26.47 ~ \pm ~ 0.92 ~ \mbox{mas yr$^{-1}$} \nonumber \\%
365: \mu_\delta & = & -28.23 ~ \pm ~ 0.73 ~ \mbox{mas yr$^{-1}$} \nonumber \\%
366: \pi & = & 8.20 ~ \pm ~ 0.37 ~ \mbox{mas.} \nonumber
367: \end{eqnarray}
368:
369:
370: \noindent
371: To obtain a reduced $\chi^2$ of 1 in both right ascension and
372: declination, one must add quadratically 0.062 ms of time, and 0.67 mas
373: to the statistical errors of S1 listed in Tab.\ 1, and 0.053 ms of
374: time, and 0.57 mas to the statistical errors of DoAr21. These figures
375: include all the unmodeled sources of positional shifts mentioned
376: earlier. Interestingly, the residuals of the fit to the S1 data (inset
377: in Fig.\ 2a) are not random, but seem to show a $\sim$ 0.7 yr
378: periodicity, as expected from the reflex motions (Sect.\
379: 4.1). Similarly, the residuals from the fit to DoAr21 seem to show a
380: periodicity of $\sim$ 1.2 yr (Fig.\ 2b, inset), within the range of
381: expected orbital periods of that system (Sect.\ 4.2). This suggests
382: that the errors are largely dominated by the unmodeled binarity of
383: both sources, and that additional observations designed to provide a
384: better characterization of the orbits ought to improve significantly
385: the precision on the trigonometric parallax determinations.
386:
387: The distance to S1 deduced from the parallax calculated above is
388: 116.9$^{+7.2}_{-6.4}$, while the distance deduced for DoAr21 is
389: 121.9$^{+5.8}_{-5.3}$. The weighted mean of these two parallaxes is
390: 8.33 $\pm$ 0.30, corresponding to a distance of
391: 120.0$^{+4.5}_{-4.3}$. Since both S1 and DoAr21 are {\it bone fide}
392: members of the Ophiuchus core, this figure must represent a good
393: estimate of the distance to this important region of
394: star-formation. Note that it is in good agreement with several recent
395: determinations (e.g.\ de Geus et al.\ 1989, Knude \& Hog 1998,
396: Lombardi et al.\ ibid), but with a significantly improved relative
397: error of 4\%. This level of accuracy is likely to be further improved
398: once additional observations of S1 and DoAr21 designed to characterize
399: their orbital motions are available. Such observations are currently
400: being collected at the VLBA. A significant improvement in the distance
401: estimate will also be obtained once the parallax to other sources
402: (also currently observed at the VLBA) are measured.
403:
404:
405: \acknowledgements L.L., R.M.T, and L.F.R. acknowledge the financial
406: support of DGAPA, UNAM and CONACyT, M\'exico. NRAO is a facility of
407: the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement
408: by Associated Universities, Inc.
409:
410: \begin{thebibliography}{}
411:
412: \bibitem[Andre et al.(1987)]{1987AJ.....93.1182A} Andre, P., Montmerle, T.,
413: \& Feigelson, E.~D.\ 1987, \aj, 93, 1182
414:
415: \bibitem[Andre et al.(1988)]{1988ApJ...335..940A} Andre, P., Montmerle, T.,
416: Feigelson, E.~D., Stine, P.~C., \& Klein, K.-L.\ 1988, \apj, 335, 940
417:
418: \bibitem[Andre et al.(1990)]{1990A&A...240..321A} Andre, P., Montmerle, T.,
419: Feigelson, E.~D., \& Steppe, H.\ 1990, \aap, 240, 321
420:
421: \bibitem[Andre et al.(1991)]{1991ApJ...376..630A} Andre, P., Phillips,
422: R.~B., Lestrade, J.-F., \& Klein, K.-L.\ 1991, \apj, 376, 630
423:
424: \bibitem[Andre et al.(1992)]{1992ApJ...401..667A} Andre, P., Deeney, B.~D.,
425: Phillips, R.~B., \& Lestrade, J.-F.\ 1992, \apj, 401, 667
426:
427: \bibitem[Beasley et al.(2002)]{2002ApJS..141...13B} Beasley, A.~J., Gordon,
428: D., Peck, A.~B., Petrov, L., MacMillan, D.~S., Fomalont, E.~B., \& Ma, C.\
429: 2002, \apjs, 141, 13
430:
431: \bibitem[Chini(1981)]{1981A&A....99..346C} Chini, R.\ 1981, \aap, 99, 346
432:
433: \bibitem[Condon(1997)]{1997PASP..109..166C} Condon, J.~J.\ 1997, \pasp,
434: 109, 166
435:
436: \bibitem[Duch{\^e}ne et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...427..651D} Duch{\^e}ne, G.,
437: Bouvier, J., Bontemps, S., Andr{\'e}, P., \& Motte, F.\ 2004, \aap, 427,
438: 651
439:
440: \bibitem[Fazio et al.(1976)]{1976ApJ...206L.165F} Fazio, G.~G., Low, F.~J.,
441: Wright, E.~L., \& Zeilik, M., II 1976, \apjl, 206, L165
442:
443: \bibitem[Feigelson \& Montmerle(1985)]{1985ApJ...289L..19F} Feigelson,
444: E.~D., \& Montmerle, T.\ 1985, \apjl, 289, L19
445:
446: \bibitem[]{884}
447: Feigelson, E.D., \& Montmerle, T., 1999, ARAA, 37, 363
448:
449: \bibitem[Gagn{\'e} et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...613..393G} Gagn{\'e}, M.,
450: Skinner, S.~L., \& Daniel, K.~J.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 393
451:
452: \bibitem[de Geus et al.(1989)]{1989A&A...216...44D} de Geus, E.~J., de
453: Zeeuw, P.~T., \& Lub, J.\ 1989, \aap, 216, 44
454:
455: \bibitem[Grasdalen et al.(1973)]{1973ApJ...184L..53G} Grasdalen, G.~L.,
456: Strom, K.~M., \& Strom, S.~E.\ 1973, \apjl, 184, L53
457:
458: \bibitem[Greisen(2003)]{Gre03} Greisen, E.W.\ 2003, in
459: Information Handling in Astronomy -- Historical Vistas, ed.\ A.\ Heck
460: (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 109
461:
462: \bibitem[Haisch et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....124.2841H} Haisch, K.~E., Jr.,
463: Barsony, M., Greene, T.~P., \& Ressler, M.~E.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 2841
464:
465: \bibitem[Johnstone et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...611L..45J} Johnstone, D., Di
466: Francesco, J., \& Kirk, H.\ 2004, \apjl, 611, L45
467:
468: \bibitem[Knude \& Hog(1998)]{1998A&A...338..897K} Knude, J., \& Hog, E.\
469: 1998, \aap, 338, 897
470:
471: \bibitem[Lada \& Lada(2003)]{2003ARA&A..41...57L} Lada, C.~J., \& Lada,
472: E.~A.\ 2003, \araa, 41, 57
473:
474: \bibitem[Leous et al.(1991)]{1991ApJ...379..683L} Leous, J.~A., Feigelson,
475: E.~D., Andre, P., \& Montmerle, T.\ 1991, \apj, 379, 683
476:
477: \bibitem[Loinard et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...671..546L} Loinard, L., Torres,
478: R.~M., Mioduszewski, A.~J., Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, L.~F.,
479: Gonz{\'a}lez-L{\'o}pezlira, R.~A., Lachaume, R., V{\'a}zquez, V., \&
480: Gonz{\'a}lez, E.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 546
481:
482: \bibitem[Loren et al.(1990)]{1990ApJ...365..269L} Loren, R.~B., Wootten,
483: A., \& Wilking, B.~A.\ 1990, \apj, 365, 269
484:
485: \bibitem[Mamajek(2007)]{2007arXiv0709.0505M} Mamajek, E.~E.\ 2007, ArXiv
486: e-prints, 709, arXiv:0709.0505
487:
488: \bibitem[Massi et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...382..152M} Massi, M., Menten, K., \&
489: Neidh{\"o}fer, J.\ 2002, \aap, 382, 152
490:
491: \bibitem[Montmerle et al.(1983)]{1983ApJ...269..182M} Montmerle, T.,
492: Koch-Miramond, L., Falgarone, E., \& Grindlay, J.~E.\ 1983, \apj, 269, 182
493:
494: \bibitem[Motte et al.(1998)]{1998A&A...336..150M} Motte, F., Andre, P., \&
495: Neri, R.\ 1998, \aap, 336, 150
496:
497: \bibitem[Ozawa et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...438..661O} Ozawa, H., Grosso, N., \&
498: Montmerle, T.\ 2005, \aap, 438, 661
499:
500: \bibitem[Padgett et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0709.3492P} Padgett, D.~L., et al.\
501: 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, arXiv:0709.3492
502:
503: \bibitem[Pradel et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...452.1099P} Pradel, N., Charlot, P.,
504: \& Lestrade, J.-F.\ 2006, \aap, 452, 1099
505:
506: \bibitem[Richichi et al.(1994)]{1994A&A...287..145R} Richichi, A., Leinert,
507: C., Jameson, R., \& Zinnecker, H.\ 1994, \aap, 287, 145
508:
509: \bibitem[Torres et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...671.1813T} Torres, R.~M., Loinard,
510: L., Mioduszewski, A.~J., \& Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, L.~F.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 1813
511:
512: \end{thebibliography}
513:
514:
515: %\begin{landscape}
516: {
517: \rotate
518: \begin{table*}
519: \caption{Observation results}
520: \centerline{\begin{tabular}{lcccrc}
521: \hline
522: \multicolumn{1}{c}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Date~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~} & JD & $\alpha$ (J2000.0) & $\delta$ (J2000.0) & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Flux} & Noise \\%
523: & & 16$^h$26$^m$ & --24$^\circ$23$'$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mJy)} & (mJy beam$^{-1}$) \\%
524: \hline
525: {\bf S1}\\%
526: 2005 Jun 24 \dotfill & 2453545.73 & \mmsec{34}{1739533} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000015} & \msec{28}{426953} $\pm$ \msec{0}{000056} & 7.03 $\pm$ 0.56 & 0.28 \\%
527: 2005 Sep 15 \dotfill & 2453628.50 & \mmsec{34}{1736922} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000020} & \msec{28}{432094} $\pm$ \msec{0}{000062} & 4.56 $\pm$ 0.47 & 0.23 \\%
528: 2005 Dec 17 \dotfill & 2453722.25 & \mmsec{34}{1743677} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000012} & \msec{28}{441493} $\pm$ \msec{0}{000044} & 4.35 $\pm$ 0.35 & 0.19 \\%
529: 2006 Mar 15 \dotfill & 2453810.01 & \mmsec{34}{1746578} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000019} & \msec{28}{451273} $\pm$ \msec{0}{000048} & 5.33 $\pm$ 0.41 & 0.17 \\%
530: 2006 Jun 03 \dotfill & 2453889.79 & \mmsec{34}{1740172} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000006} & \msec{28}{455940} $\pm$ \msec{0}{000023} & 3.29 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.07 \\%
531: 2006 Aug 22 \dotfill & 2453969.54 & \mmsec{34}{1732962} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000012} & \msec{28}{462601} $\pm$ \msec{0}{000050} & 4.35 $\pm$ 0.22 & 0.09 \\%
532: \hline
533: {\bf DoAr21}\\%
534: 2005 Sep 08 \dotfill & 2453621.52 & \mmsec{03}{0189304} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000065} & \msec{36}{343394} $\pm$ \msec{0}{00013} & 11.78 $\pm$ 1.41 & 0.35 \\%
535: 2005 Nov 16 \dotfill & 2453691.33 & \mmsec{03}{0191097} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000023} & \msec{36}{344504} $\pm$ \msec{0}{00005} & 20.34 $\pm$ 1.42 & 0.55 \\%
536: 2006 Jan 08 \dotfill & 2453744.19 & \mmsec{03}{0191069} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000059} & \msec{36}{355803} $\pm$ \msec{0}{00023} & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.12 & 0.05 \\%
537: 2006 Jan 19 \dotfill & 2453755.16 & \mmsec{03}{0191795} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000028} & \msec{36}{355677} $\pm$ \msec{0}{00013} & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.19 & 0.11 \\%
538: 2006 Mar 28 \dotfill & 2453822.97 & \mmsec{03}{0189625} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000070} & \msec{36}{361924} $\pm$ \msec{0}{00020} & 1.49 $\pm$ 0.28 & 0.13 \\%
539: 2006 Jun 04 \dotfill & 2453890.78 & \mmsec{03}{0182041} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000019} & \msec{36}{363763} $\pm$ \msec{0}{00010} & 1.92 $\pm$ 0.23 & 0.11 \\%
540: 2006 Aug 24 \dotfill & 2453971.53 & \mmsec{03}{0169857} $\pm$ \mmsec{0}{0000037} & \msec{36}{369957} $\pm$ \msec{0}{00016} & 1.45 $\pm$ 0.32 & 0.16 \\%
541: \hline
542: \\%
543: \end{tabular}}
544: \end{table*}}
545: %\end{landscape}
546:
547: \clearpage
548:
549: \begin{figure}[!b]
550: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth,angle=-90]{f1.eps}}
551: \caption{Radio flux of S1 (full line) and DoAr21 (dotted line) as a function
552: of time.}
553: \end{figure}
554:
555: \begin{figure*}[!t]
556: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=1\textwidth,angle=-90]{f2.eps}}
557: \caption{Measured positions and best fit for (a) S1, and (b) DoAr21.
558: The observed positions are shown as ellipses, the size of which
559: represents the magnitude of the errors. The positions at each epoch
560: expected from the best fits are shown as $+$ signs. The insets show
561: the residuals (fit-observation) in right ascension (full line) and
562: declination (dotted line).}
563: \end{figure*}
564:
565:
566: \end{document}
567:
568: