1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ Letters}
7:
8: \title{Optical Interferometric Observations of $\theta^{1}$ Orionis C
9: from NPOI and Implications for the System Orbit}
10:
11: \author{J. Patience\altaffilmark{1}, R.~T. Zavala\altaffilmark{2},
12: L. Prato\altaffilmark{3}, O. Franz\altaffilmark{3}, L. Wasserman\altaffilmark{3},
13: C. Tycner\altaffilmark{4}, D.~J. Hutter\altaffilmark{2}, C.~A. Hummel\altaffilmark{5}}
14:
15: \altaffiltext{1}{University of Exeter, School of Physics, Astrophysics Group,
16: Stocker Road, Exeter, EX4 4QL United Kingdom; patience@astro.ex.ac.uk}
17: \altaffiltext{2}{U.S. Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station, 10391 W. Naval
18: Obs. Rd., Flagstaff, AZ 86001; bzavala@nofs.navy.mil; djh@nofs.navy.mil}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Lowell Observatory, 1400 West Mars Hill Rd.,
20: Flagstaff, AZ 86001; lprato@lowell.edu; otto.franz@lowell.edu; lhw@lowell.edu}
21: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant,
22: MI 48859; c.tycner@cmich.edu}
23: \altaffiltext{5}{European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2,
24: 85748 Garching, Germany; chummel@eso.org}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: With the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer (NPOI), the
28: binary system $\theta^{1}$ Orionis C, the most massive member of the
29: Trapezium, was spatially resolved over a time period extending from
30: February 2006 to March 2007. The
31: data show significant orbital motion over the 14 months, and, after
32: combining the
33: NPOI data with previous measurements of the system from the
34: literature, the observations
35: span 10 years of the orbit. Our results indicate that the
36: secondary did not experience an unusually close periastron passage this year,
37: in contradiction to the prediction of a recently published, highly
38: eccentric $\sim$11 year orbit. Future observations
39: of this source will be required to improve the orbital solution. Possible
40: implications of the results in terms of system distance
41: are discussed, although a main conclusion of this work
42: is that a definitive orbit solution will require more time to obtain
43: sufficient phase coverage, and that the interaction
44: effects expected at periastron did not occur in 2007.
45:
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \keywords{binaries: close; open clusters and associations: individual
49: (Trapezium); stars: individual ($\theta^{1}$ Orionis C); techniques:
50: interferometric}
51:
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54:
55: Orion is the nearest example of a giant molecular cloud and is the
56: site of both high-mass star formation and a prodigious number of
57: recently-formed stars; the central 2.5 pc region of the Orion Nebula
58: Cluster (ONC) alone contains $\sim$3500 stars with a combined mass exceeding
59: 900 $M_{\odot}$ \citep{hil97}. Although star-forming regions such as
60: Taurus are closer, these regions are dark clouds associated with
61: low-mass star formation and far fewer total stars. Initial star-count
62: studies \citep{lad91} implied that up to 95\% of stars formed in
63: clustered environments like Orion, while more recent {\it Spitzer
64: Space Telescope} results indicate that at
65: least half of all stars originate in dense regions \citep{meg04}.
66: An analysis of binary star
67: distributions \citep{pat02} suggests that approximately 70\% of field
68: stars may have formed in a clustered environment.
69: Thus, the study of Orion, the closest giant star forming cluster, is
70: central to investigating the early history of the majority of stars.
71: Furthermore, the variety of cluster morphologies investigated with
72: {\it Spitzer} observations suggest
73: that OB stars play a significant role in the formation and evolution
74: of star formation in clusters \citep{meg04}.
75:
76: The distance to Orion is a critical parameter that influences the
77: interpretation of many of the properties of the region and its
78: members. Measurements range from $\sim$390 pc to $\sim$480 pc
79: using a variety of methods and assumptions including observations of water
80: masers, radio sources, an eclipsing binary, and statistical analysis
81: \citep[and references therein]{gen81, sta04, san07, men07, jef07}.
82: A closer distance would imply that the
83: stars are less luminous, and members that are still contracting onto the
84: main sequence are consequently older based on comparison with
85: theoretical evolutionary tracks \citep[e.g.,][]{sie00, pal99}.
86: Older ages for the stars above the main sequence
87: suggest a spread in ages.
88:
89: Binary stars yield
90: a model-independent distance with the combination of a
91: spatially resolved orbit and a double-lined radial velocity orbit
92: \citep[e.g.,][]{tor97}. Given the distance to Orion, very high
93: angular resolution is required to separate binary systems which exhibit
94: significant orbital motion. The binary
95: system $\theta^{1}$ Ori C (HD 37022) in the
96: Trapezium region of Orion has such a close separation that it was not
97: detected until speckle observations barely resolved the pair
98: \citep{wei99} with a separation of less than the diffraction limit of
99: the 6m telescope employed in the discovery.
100: The separation has decreased over time and is now best
101: monitored with interferometry; a recent orbit fit
102: suggested the system might be just past periastron and completing an
103: orbital cycle within a year \citep{kra07}. In this letter, we present
104: the results of interferometric observations with NPOI that add
105: significantly to the binary orbit phase coverage and suggest the orbital
106: period may be substantially longer than predicted.
107:
108: The distance to $\theta^{1}$ Ori C in particular and its physical
109: parameters such as mass and age are of great importance
110: since the O7 primary \citep[e.g.,][]{gar82},
111: as the most massive member of the ONC, has the
112: dominant role in shaping the properties of the surrounding nebula, and
113: strongly impacts the circumstellar material around the ONC stars. The
114: photoionizing radiation from $\theta^{1}$ Ori C produces the brightening
115: of many proplyds \citep{ode93}, but also causes the material to
116: escape. Observations of mass loss rates \citep{joh98, hen99} and
117: theoretical modeling of the results \citep[e.g.,][]{sto99} imply
118: that these structures cannot survive for $\ga10^5$ yrs, substantially
119: less than the $<$1$-$2 Myr age of the ONC \citep{hil97}. Possible explanations
120: for the apparent contradiction in disk lifetimes and stellar ages
121: include radial orbits for the proplyds \citep{sto99} or a very young
122: age for $\theta^{1}$ Ori C, such as has been proposed for $\theta^{1}$
123: Ori B \citep{pal01}. In contrast, recent models of the evolution of
124: disk sizes in the ONC \citep{cla07} suggest that disk survival times of 1-2 Myr in
125: the uv field produced by $\theta^{1}$ Ori C are possible -- consistent
126: with the age of the stellar population. Key to
127: estimating the age of $\theta^{1}$ Ori C is placing the secondary
128: accurately on the H-R diagram with a well-measured distance,
129: luminosity, and mass given that the primary has already contracted
130: onto the main sequence. We present new magnitude differences
131: which will aid in the assessment of the luminosity, but concentrate on the
132: orbital motion which is required to estimate the distance.
133:
134: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
135:
136: During Feb. 2006 to Mar. 2007, $\theta^{1}$ Ori C was observed with NPOI
137: on 6 nights. The NPOI array at
138: Anderson Mesa near Flagstaff, AZ,
139: consists of six 50 cm (12 cm clear aperture) siderostats which can be
140: deployed along a Y-shaped array of
141: vacuum light pipes \citep{arm98}. The wavelength coverage spans
142: 550$-$850 nm over 16 spectral channels. Details regarding the NPOI observational
143: setup and data recording can be found
144: in \citet{hum03} and \citet{ben03}.
145: More recent upgrades relevant to this program are improvements in the
146: acquisition camera sensitivity and calibration of the bias level for
147: low count rates; implementation of these two
148: changes enabled the observations of $\theta^{1}$ Ori C. Table 1 provides
149: a log of the NPOI observations.
150:
151: The observations of $\theta^{1}$ Ori C were interleaved with
152: $\epsilon$ Ori, one of the bright (V=1.70) belt stars. The visibilities
153: from $\epsilon$ Ori serve to calibrate both variable atmospheric
154: conditions and the system response to a point source. The small angular
155: diameter of $\epsilon$ Ori -- 0.86 $\pm$ 0.16 milli-arcseconds (mas)
156: \citep{moz91}
157: -- and its proximity to
158: $\theta^{1}$ Ori C -- less than 5\arcdeg\ separation -- allowed for
159: accurate atmospheric
160: correction. For both the target and calibrator, the fringes were
161: recorded in 2 ms frames for a total scan duration of
162: 30 s before switching to the other source. The
163: individual 2 ms data were averaged over a 1 s time period, and these
164: 1 s data points were checked for outliers before averaging to
165: generate 30 s averaged $V^{2}$ measurements. Calibration factors
166: were determined by comparing the observed data
167: of $\epsilon$ Ori to that expected from a 0.86 mas diameter single star.
168: These calibration factors were then applied to observations of
169: $\theta^{1}$ Ori C.
170: The flagging, averaging, and
171: calibration steps were performed with the OYSTER package, as described
172: in Hummel et al. (1998, 2003), except that the bias corrections were
173: determined for each star individually.
174:
175: \section{Results and Analysis}
176:
177: The calibrated visibilities were fit with a model comprised of two
178: stars with slightly resolved stellar surfaces. The primary star diameter
179: was estimated to be 0.3 mas using the expected
180: diameter of an O7 star at a distance of 450 pc \citep{dri00}. Assuming the spectral type from
181: \citet{kra07}, the secondary
182: diameter was set to half that of the primary, rounded to 0.2 mas. The
183: observational setup did not
184: allow us to fit for such small diameters convincingly, so we held these
185: values constant. Figure 1 shows examples
186: of calibrated $V^2$ values and the best fit model. Predicted visibilities
187: from a recent orbit solution \citep{kra07} are also plotted. Table 1
188: lists the epoch, siderostats
189: used, number of baselines, maximum baseline length, number of scans,
190: estimated separation and position angle with uncertainties, and the
191: position error ellipses.
192: Because each scan yields up to 16 $V^2$ values per baseline and up to 405
193: $V^2$ points were obtained during a night, individual
194: measurements are not listed, but examples are plotted in Figure
195: 1. Model fits to individual baselines include a 180$\arcdeg$ ambiguity in the
196: position angle, and the values listed in Table 1 are chosen based on
197: previous measurements and the inability to fit orbits if the companion
198: was located in the opposite quadrant in the 2007 data.
199: Some nights listed in Table 1 included closure phase observations, but we
200: defer discussion of these results, which have the ability to directly
201: resolve the 180$\arcdeg$ ambiguity, for a future paper including results from
202: calibration binaries.
203:
204: While the bandpass does
205: not exactly match the $V$ or $R$ filters, our magnitude
206: difference measured at 550 nm closely approximates that of the V band \citep{zav07}.
207: Considering all the data, the best estimates for the observed magnitude
208: differences are $\Delta$ mag$_{\rm 550 nm} = 1.3 \pm 0.3$ and
209: $\Delta$ mag$_{\rm 700 nm}= 1.2 \pm
210: 0.2$. The NPOI measurement agrees with previous $\Delta V$
211: estimates from speckle observations taken at the 6.0~m Special
212: Astrophysical Observatory at Mt. Pastukhov in Russia \citep[1.1 mag,][]{kra07}.
213:
214: Orbits based on the previous measurements and the new NPOI data
215: are shown in Figure 2. The earliest NPOI data from Feb. 2006 show
216: only minimal
217: orbital motion from the IOTA Dec. 2005 data \citep{kra07}, indicating there is not
218: an offset between the two systems. The 2007 NPOI data show significant
219: evolution in the orbit. The measured separations of the secondary
220: relative to the primary are larger than expected from the predicted
221: orbit and lag behind the solution in orbital phase \citep{kra07}. The
222: NPOI results indicate that a very close
223: periastron passage did not take place this year as
224: suggested by the preliminary orbital solutions of \citet{kra07}.
225:
226: As indicated in Figure 2, only part of the orbit -- probably less than
227: one half -- is covered by the extant data, making any assessment of
228: the orbit fit preliminary. Combining all previous position
229: measurements and associated error bars with the NPOI visibilities and
230: uncertainties, we fit an orbit using
231: ORBGRID \citep{hmf89, mdh99} and used its solution
232: as a starting point for a least squares
233: solution; uncertainties from the covariance matrix of
234: the least squares solution are quoted (Table 2). Both
235: ORBGRID and the least squares solution
236: weight the astrometric points in a relative sense,
237: and we set these weights according to the areas of the
238: error ellipses from our Table 1 and Table 3 of \citet{kra07}.
239:
240: We stress that the orbital elements of the best fit based on the
241: current data (Table 2) may be modified
242: substantially as more data become available. Compared with the
243: previous solution, we find a longer period and a much less eccentric
244: orbit. Our lower eccentricity of
245: 0.16 is well within the bulk of the distribution for T Tauri binaries
246: \citep[e.g.,][]{mat94}, the
247: lower mass counterparts of $\theta^1$ Ori C. In contrast, the earlier
248: solution found an extremely high
249: eccentricity of 0.91$-$0.93 (Kraus et al. 2007).
250:
251: Although it is premature to calculate a robust
252: distance to the Orion Nebula Cluster from our data, if we
253: assume a total system mass of 40~M$_{\odot}$ the orbital elements
254: in Table~\ref{orbit} give a dynamical parallax distance of 730 pc ---
255: unrealistically large considering the
256: distance to the background high extinction molecular gas
257: \citep{gen81}. The 40~M$_{\odot}$ value is the minimum mass estimate
258: from the evolutionary tracks of \citet{wal94}, using a T$_{\rm eff}$ for an
259: O7 star of 36,000~K \citep{mas05}. The values of $\Delta$mag$_{\rm 550nm}$ and
260: $\Delta$mag$_{\rm 700nm}$ between the primary and secondary stars imply at the
261: latest a B2 secondary spectral type \citep{dri00}, with a corresponding
262: T$_{\rm eff}$ of 28,000~K. Thus, 40~M$_{\odot}$ is a lower limit; larger
263: masses would imply an even greater distance.
264:
265: Figure 3 summarizes our dynamical parallax
266: measurement. The uncertainty in the value of
267: a$^3$/P$^2$ (Table~\ref{orbit}), directly related to parallax, does not
268: yield a reliable estimate of distance at this time.
269: Increasing the semi-major axis
270: by 1 $\sigma$ and reducing the period by 1 $\sigma$ yields a low value
271: for the distance of 344 pc for the same total mass. Clearly, the
272: available data do not significantly constrain the distance to $\theta^1$ Ori C.
273: Figure 3 compares the best-fit semi-major axis and period, with their
274: associated 1 $\sigma$ and 2 $\sigma$ error ellipses, to
275: the values expected for the two Orion distances estimated from the
276: radio star and the maser. To explore fits to our data with more physical
277: distances imposed, we selected a range of nine periods from 10 to 26 years
278: and determined the corresponding semi-major axes for distances of 390~pc
279: and 480~pc. For both distances, fits were obtained for periods of $\sim$22
280: years with orbital elements that agreed to within $\sim3\sigma$ of the
281: best fit elements (Table~\ref{orbit}). Fits for other periods were
282: significantly (by many sigma) worse.
283:
284: Further monitoring of
285: the orbit of $\theta^1$ Ori C is required to decrease the
286: errors in the orbital elements and provide a reliable dynamical
287: distance. Given the proximity to periastron passage,
288: continued observations are
289: particularly important over the next months and years.
290: Resolving the distance and mass of $\theta^1$ Ori C, and revealing
291: the nature of its interactions with the local environment,
292: will provide important insight into the closest region of
293: massive star formation.
294:
295: \acknowledgments
296:
297: The Navy Prototype Optical
298: Interferometer is a joint project of the
299: Naval Research Laboratory and the US Naval Observatory, in
300: cooperation with Lowell Observatory, and is funded by the Office of
301: Naval Research and the Oceanographer of the Navy. The authors would
302: like to thank Jim Benson and the NPOI observational support staff Dave Allen,
303: Jim Clark, Brit O'Neill, Susan Strosahl, Dale Theiling, Josh Walton and
304: Ron Winner whose efforts made this project possible. We thank Phil Massey,
305: Nathan Mayne for helpful discussions, and Nat White for assistance
306: with observing arrangements. RTZ thanks the Michelson Science Center
307: for an invitation to visit which helped initiate this work, and JP
308: gratefully acknowledges funding from the Michelson Fellowship Program.
309:
310: {\it Facilities:} \facility{NPOI ()}
311:
312:
313:
314:
315: \begin{thebibliography}{}
316:
317: \bibitem[Armstrong et al.(1998)]{arm98} Armstrong, J. T., et al.
318: 1998, \apj, 496, 550
319:
320: \bibitem[Benson et al.(2003)]{ben03} Benson, J.A., Hummel, C.A. \&
321: Mozurkewich, D. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4838, 358
322:
323: \bibitem[Clarke (2007)]{cla07} Clarke, C. J. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1350
324:
325: \bibitem[Drilling \& Landolt(2000)]{dri00} Drilling, J. S., \& Landolt, A. U.
326: 2000, in Astrophysical Quantities, ed. A. N. Cox (New York: Springer),
327: 388$-$389
328:
329: \bibitem[Garmany et al.(1982)]{gar82} Garmany, C. D., Conti, P. S.,
330: \& Chiosi, C. 1982, ApJ, 263, 777
331:
332: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(1981)]{gen81} Genzel, R., Reid, M. J., Moran,
333: J. M., \& Downes, D. 1981, \apj, 244, 844
334:
335: \bibitem[Hartkopf et al.(1989)]{hmf89} Hartkopf, W.~I.,
336: McAlister, H.~A., \& Franz, O.~G. 1989, \aj, 98, 1014
337:
338: \bibitem[Henney \& O'Dell(1999)]{hen99} Henney, W. J. \& O'Dell,
339: C. R. 1999, \aj, 118, 2350
340:
341: \bibitem[Hillenbrand(1997)]{hil97} Hillenbrand, L. A. 1997, \aj, 113, 1733
342:
343: \bibitem[Hummel et al.(2003)]{hum03} Hummel, C. A., et al.
344: 2003, \aj, 125, 2630
345:
346: \bibitem[Hummel et al.(1998)]{hum98} Hummel, C. A., Mozurkewich,
347: D., Armstrong, J. T., Hajian, A. R., Elias, N. M., II., \& Hutter,
348: D. J. 1998, \aj, 116, 2536
349:
350: \bibitem[Jeffries(2007)]{jef07} Jeffries, R. D. 2007, \mnras, 376, 1109
351:
352: \bibitem[Johnstone et al.(1998)]{joh98} Johnstone, D., Hollenbach, D.,
353: \& Bally, J. 1998, \apj, 499, 758
354:
355: \bibitem[Kraus et al.(2007)]{kra07} Kraus, S., et al. 2007 A\&A, 466, 649
356:
357: \bibitem[Lada et al.(1991)]{lad91} Lada, E. A., Evans, N. J., II.,
358: Depoy, D. L., \& Gatley, I. 1991, \apj, 371, 171
359:
360: \bibitem[Mason et al.(1999)]{mdh99} Mason, B.~D., Douglass,
361: G.~G., \& Hartkopf, W.~I. 1999, \aj, 117, 1023
362:
363: \bibitem[Massey et al.(2005)]{mas05} Massey, P., Puls, J., Pauldrach,
364: A. W. A., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R. P., \& Simon, T. 2005, ApJ, 627, 477
365:
366: \bibitem[Mathieu(1994)]{mat94} Mathieu, R. D. 1994, \araa, 32, 465
367:
368:
369: \bibitem[Megeath et al.(2004)]{meg04} Megeath, S. T., et al. 2004,
370: \apjs, 154, 367
371:
372: \bibitem[Menten et al.(2007)]{men07} Menten, K. M., Reid, M. J.,
373: Forbich, J., \& Brunthaler, A. 2007, A\&A, 474, 515
374:
375: \bibitem[Mozurkewich et al.(1991)]{moz91} Mozurkewich, D., et
376: al. 1991, \aj, 101, 2207
377:
378: \bibitem[O'Dell et al.(1993)]{ode93} O'Dell, C. R., Wen, Z., \& Hu,
379: X. 1993, \apj, 410, 696
380:
381: \bibitem[Palla \& Stahler(1999)]{pal99} Palla, F. \& Stahler,
382: S. W. 1999, \apj, 540, 255
383:
384: \bibitem[Palla \& Stahler(2001)]{pal01} Palla, F. \& Stahler,
385: S. W. 2001, \apj, 553, 299
386:
387: \bibitem[Patience et al.(2002)]{pat02} Patience, J., Ghez, A. M.,
388: Reid, I. N., \& Matthews, K. 2002, \aj, 123, 1570
389:
390: \bibitem[Sandstrom et al.(2007)]{san07} Sandstrom, K. M., Peek,
391: J. E. G., Bower, G. C., Bolatto, A. D., \& Plambeck, R. L. 2007,
392: \apj, 667, 1161
393:
394: \bibitem[Siess et al.(2000)]{sie00} Siess, L., Dufour, E., \&
395: Forestini, M., 2000, A\&A, 358, 593
396:
397: \bibitem[Stassun et al.(2004)]{sta04} Stassun, K. G., Mathieu, R. D.,
398: Vaz, L. P. R., Stroud, N., \& Vrba, F. J. 2004, ApJS, 151, 357
399:
400: \bibitem[Stoerzer \& Hollenbach(1999)]{sto99} Stoerzer, H. \&
401: Hollenbach, D. 1999, \apj, 515, 669
402:
403: \bibitem[Torres et al.(1997)]{tor97} Torres, G., Stefanik, R. P., \&
404: Latham, D. W. 1997, \apj, 479, 268
405:
406: \bibitem[Walborn \& Nichols(1994)]{wal94} Walborn, N. R., \&
407: Nichols, J. S. 1994, ApJ, 425, L29
408:
409: \bibitem[Weigelt et al.(1999)]{wei99} Weigelt, G., Balega, Y.,
410: Preibisch, T., Schertl, D., Schoeller, M., \& Zinnecker, H. 1999,
411: A\&A, 347, L15
412:
413: \bibitem[Zavala et al.(2007)]{zav07} Zavala, R.~T., et al.
414: 2007, \apj, 655, 1046
415:
416: \end{thebibliography}
417:
418: \clearpage
419:
420: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccccc}
421: \rotate
422: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
423: \tablecaption{NPOI Observations and $V^{2}$ Model Fit Results \label{tbl-1}}
424: \tablewidth{0pt}
425: \tablehead{
426: \colhead{UT Date} & \colhead{Julian Year} & \colhead{Siderostats} & \colhead{$\#$ b.l.} &
427: \colhead{Max b.l.} & \colhead{$\# V^{2}$} & \colhead{$\rho$}
428: & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rho}$} & \colhead{$\theta$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\theta}$} &
429: \colhead{$\sigma_{maj}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{min}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\phi}$ (\arcdeg)} \\
430: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} &
431: \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)} & \colhead{(9)} & \colhead{(10)} &
432: \colhead{(11)} & \colhead{(12)} & \colhead{(13)}
433: }
434: \startdata
435: 2006 Feb 24 & 2006.1486 & AC-AE-AW & 2 & 22.2 & 171 & 11.80 & 1.11 & 152.3 & 3.5 & 1.20 & 0.54 & 178.0 \\
436: 2007 Feb 22 & 2007.1425 & AE-AW-W7 & 2 & 37.4 & 118 & 11.94 & 0.31 & 88.1 & 5.2 & 1.09 & 0.28 & 170.4 \\
437: 2007 Feb 25 & 2007.1507 & AE-AW-W7 & 2 & 37.4 & 60 & 12.13 & 1.58 & 92.9 & 8.8 & 2.41 & 0.39 & 142.8 \\
438: 2007 Mar 06 & 2007.1753 & AE-AW-AN-W7 & 4 & 38.1 & 405 & 12.17 & 0.37 & 86.6 & 2.1 & 0.46 & 0.36 & 157.6\\
439: 2007 Mar 17 & 2007.2055 & AE-AW-AN-W7 & 4 & 38.1 & 135 & 12.28 & 0.41 & 85.6 & 1.9 & 0.46 & 0.35 & 42.2 \\
440: 2007 Mar 20 & 2007.2137 & AE-AW-AN-W7 & 4 & 38.1 & 200 & 12.14 & 0.43 & 83.0 & 2.3 & 0.49 & 0.42 & 158.2\\
441:
442: \enddata
443:
444: % Text for table footnotes follows the tabular data and must be inside the
445: % deluxetable environment. Note that it is OK to put \ref's in
446: % \tablenotetext's.
447:
448: \tablecomments{Col. (1): UT date of NPOI observation
449: Col. (2): Julian Year of NPOI observation. Col. (3): Siderostats used Col. (4): Number of independent
450: baselines Col. (5): Max. baseline length (m) Col. (6): Number of V$^2$ measurements Col. (7): Fitted
451: binary separation (mas) Col. (8): Error in $\rho$ (mas) Col. (9): Fitted binary position angle
452: (\arcdeg).; this angle is chosen as it is a smooth extension of
453: previous results and no orbital solutions could be found using $\theta+180\arcdeg$ Col. (10): Error in $\theta$ (\arcdeg) Col. (11): Semi-major axis of error ellipse (mas).
454: Col. (12): Semi-minor axis of error ellipse (mas) Col. 13: Position angle of error ellipse.}
455: \end{deluxetable}
456:
457: \clearpage
458:
459: \begin{deluxetable}{cc}
460: \tablecaption{O{\sc rbital} E{\sc lements} \label{orbit}}
461: \tablewidth{0pt}
462: \tablehead{ \colhead{Data} & \colhead{Value}}
463: \startdata
464: a (mas) & 41 $\pm$ 14 \\
465: i (deg) & 107.2 $\pm$ 3.5 \\
466: $\Omega$ (deg) & 208.8 $\pm$ 3.7 \\
467: e & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.14 \\
468: $\omega$ (deg)& 96.9 $\pm$ 118.7 \\
469: T$_0$ (JY) & 2007.0 $\pm$ 5.9 \\
470: T$_0$ (JD) & 2454101 $\pm$ 2154 \\
471: P (days) & 9497 $\pm$ 1461 \\
472: P (years) & 26 $\pm$ 13 \\
473: a$^3$/P$^2$ (mas$^3$/yr$^2$) & 103 $\pm$ 146 \\
474: $\chi^2/dof$ & 2.6$\times10^{-6}$ \\
475: \enddata
476: \end{deluxetable}
477:
478:
479: \clearpage
480:
481:
482: \begin{figure}
483: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
484: \caption{Left: Panels showing 3 of 9 scans of the calibrated V$^2$ of
485: $\theta^1$ Ori C observed with the AE-AW baseline on 2007 Mar 06
486: overlaid with a model of separation 12.17~mas and position angle
487: 86.6\arcdeg\ (Table 1). Right: A set of three panels shows the same
488: data but overlaid using the predicted separation of 8.6~mas at a
489: position angle of 86.28\arcdeg\ for orbit 1 of \citet{kra07}
490: on that date. The errors include both a statistical error and an
491: estimate of the uncertainty of the calibration. \label{f1}}
492: \end{figure}
493:
494: \clearpage
495:
496: \begin{figure}
497: \plotone{f2.eps}
498: \caption{The best-fit orbit of $\theta^1$ Ori C with orbital elements
499: listed in Table~\ref{orbit} is plotted as a solid line. This fit
500: incorporates the NPOI astrometric results from Table 1 and previous
501: measurements given in \citet{kra07}. Error ellipses
502: for the astrometric points are shown along with a vector indicating the
503: periastron point. The dashed line shows the predicted orbit (Orbit1)
504: from \citet{kra07}. We display the closely spaced 2007 NPOI astrometric solutions
505: in the inset for clarity. The next set of observations should
506: demonstrate decisively the validity of a longer period solution. \label{f2}}
507: \end{figure}
508:
509: \clearpage
510:
511: \begin{figure}
512: \plotone{f3.eps}
513: \caption{The best-fit period and semi-major axis from Table 2 are
514: plotted with a cross, and the superimposed error ellipses (solid
515: lines) represent
516: the 1 and 2 $\sigma$ errors of the orbital elements
517: in Table 2. For a total system mass of 40 M$_{\odot}$, the period and
518: semi-major axis values consistent with distances of 480 pc (dashed)
519: and 380 pc (dotted) are also indicated. At the $\sim$1 $\sigma$ level, the
520: current orbit fit is consistent with essentially all measured
521: distances to $\theta^1$ Ori C. Given the limited
522: phase coverage of the orbit a definitive
523: distance measurement will require continued observations. \label{f3}}
524: \end{figure}
525:
526:
527: \end{document}
528: