1: %\documentstyle[russian,twoside,epsf]{article}
2:
3: %\documentclass[a4paper,twoside,12pt]{article}
4: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
5: %\usepackage[koi8-r]{inputenc}
6: %\usepackage[russian]{babel}
7: %\usepackage{babel}
8: %\usepackage{srcltx}% To use Kile package
9: \usepackage{amsmath}% E.g. for \text command
10: \usepackage{epsf}
11: \usepackage{comment}
12:
13: \usepackage{natbib}
14: \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{;}{u}{}{,}
15:
16: %\usepackage{../asp2004_DoG}
17: \usepackage{asp2004_DoG}% For astroph
18: %usepackage{/mnt/dosd/nii/tex/sty/art_nii}
19:
20: %\input /mnt/dosd/nii/tex/prof_lin
21: %\input /mnt/dosd/nii/tex/p_phys
22: \input prof_lin.inc% For astroph
23: \input p_phys.inc% For astroph
24:
25: \DeclareMathOperator{\msin}{\smash[t]{\mathrm{sin}}}
26:
27: \pagestyle{myheadings}
28: \markboth{I. I. Nikiforov}%
29: {Systematic Error in $R_0$ from Solving for Stellar Orbit Around Sgr A*}
30: \setcounter{page}{1}
31: \voffset=-10mm%+ low
32: \hoffset=-13.1mm%+ right
33: \textheight 24cm
34: \textwidth 16.5cm
35: \binoppenalty=10000
36: \relpenalty=10000
37:
38: \begin{document}
39: \sloppy
40: %\large
41:
42: \begin{center}
43: \LARGE\bf
44: %\large\bf
45: On a Source of Systematic Error\\ in Absolute Measurement of Galactocentric
46: Distance from Solving for the Stellar Orbit Around Sgr A*
47: \end{center}
48: \thispagestyle{empty}
49: \sc
50:
51: \vskip 12pt
52: %\medskip
53: \begin{center}
54: \large
55: Igor' I. Nikiforov%
56: \end{center}
57: \it
58:
59: \vskip 1pt
60: %\smallskip
61: \begin{center}
62: Sobolev Astronomical Institute, St.~Petersburg State
63: University, Universitetskij pr.~28, Staryj Peterhof, St.~Petersburg 198504,
64: Russia, nii@astro.spbu.ru
65: \end{center}
66: \rm
67:
68: %\smallskip
69: %\vskip 12pt
70: \begin{abstract}
71: \citet{Eea03,Eea05} derived absolute (geometrical) estimates of the distance
72: to the center of the Galaxy, $R_0$, from the star S2 orbit around Sgr~A* on
73: the assumption that the intrinsic velocity of Sgr~A* is negligible. This
74: assumption produces the source of systematic error in $R_0$ value owing to a
75: probable motion of Sgr~A* relative to the accepted velocity reference system
76: which is arbitrary to some extent. \citeauthor{Eea05}\ justify neglecting all
77: three spatial velocity components of Sgr~A* mainly by low limits of Sgr~A*'s
78: proper motion of 20--60 km/s. In this brief paper, a simple analysis in the
79: context of the Keplerian dynamics was used to demonstrate that neglect of even
80: low (perhaps, formal) radial velocity of Sgr~A* leads to a substantial
81: systematic error in $R_0$: the same limits of 20--60~km/s result in $R_0$
82: errors of 1.3--5.6\%, i.e., (0.1--0.45)$\times (R_0/8)$~kpc, for current S2
83: velocities. Similar values for Sgr~A*'s tangential motion can multiply this
84: systematic error in the case of S2 orbit by factor ${\approx}1.5$--$1.9$ in the limiting
85: cases.
86: \end{abstract}
87:
88: \section{Introduction}
89:
90: The distance from the Sun to the center of the Milky Way, $R_0$, is a
91: fundamental Galactic constant for solving many astronomical and
92: astrophysical problems \citep[see, e.g.,][]{R93}. That is why, in its
93: turn, the problem of determination of $R_0$ remains topical over many
94: years. Absolute (i.e., not using luminosity calibrations) estimates of
95: $R_0$ with a current 3\% formal uncertainty from modelling the star S2 orbit
96: around the compact concentration of dark mass, the so-called
97: ``supermassive black hole'', associated with the radio source Sgr~A*
98: \citep{Eea03,Eea05,Tea06} present a major breakthrough in measuring
99: $R_0$! (For brevity, from here on the object in focus of S2 orbit will be
100: referred to as ``Sgr~A*''.)
101:
102: However, even though to take no notice the issue on coincidence of Sgr~A*
103: with the dynamical and/or luminous center(s) of our Galaxy \citep[see
104: discussion in][]{Nishiyama_ea06}, taken alone the modelling the orbital motion
105: of a star near Sgr~A* can be plagued with various {\em systematic\/} sources
106: of error. Since \citeauthor{Eea05}\ solved for the {\em Keplerian\/} orbit of
107: the star S2, in the literature {\em relativistic\/} effects and {\em non-Keplerian\/}
108: orbit modelling are primarily explored for this problem
109: \citep[e.g.,][]{Eea05,Mouawad_ea05,Weinberg_ea05}.
110:
111: Meanwhile, \citeauthor{Eea05}\ also used another {\em assumption that the
112: intrinsic velocity of Sgr~A* is negligible\/}. This assumption can produce
113: the source of systematic error in $R_0$ value owing to a probable motion of
114: Sgr~A* relative to the accepted velocity reference system which is
115: arbitrary to some extent. Thus far, no consideration has been given to the
116: role of this factor in measuring $R_0$.
117:
118: In this study, a simple analysis is used to evaluate the {\em impact of an
119: unaccounted motion of Sgr~A*\/} (i.e., the focus of S2 orbit) {\em on an $R_0$
120: value\/} found from the formal solution of orbit. The Keplerian dynamics only is
121: taken into consideration because relativistic and non-Keplerian effects seem
122: to be insignificant for measuring $R_0$
123: \citep{Eea05,Mouawad_ea05,Weinberg_ea05}. Particular attention has been given
124: to the impact of a nonzero radial velocity of Sgr~A* relative to the
125: Local Standard of Rest.
126:
127: \section{Structure of the Problem on Determination of Orbital Parameters,
128: Distance to and Mass at Orbital Focus (Sgr~A*)}%$
129:
130: The completeness of solution of the problem in question is determined by the
131: type of available data on motion of an individual star (S2).
132:
133:
134: \subsection{Star's Proper Motions Alone are Available}%
135:
136: In this case, {\em all six orbital parameters are solved, except that only the
137: absolute value of the inclination angle, $i$, is determined\/}, leaving the
138: questions of the direction of revolution (prograde, $i>0$, or retrograde,
139: $i<0$) and where along the line of sight the star is located behind the
140: central object unresolved
141: \citep[e.g.,][]{Ghez_ea03}. Besides, {\em the semimajor axis is derived in
142: angular units\/} (in arcsec), hereafter $a''$. The distance to the focus,
143: i.e., $R_0$, and the central mass, $M$, can not be solved.
144:
145: With accepted $R_0$, however, the value of semimajor axis, $a$, is calculated
146: in linear units (in kpc) and the central mass is found from Kepler's third law
147: \be\label{M}
148: M=n^2a^3/G, \qquad n=2\pi/P,
149: \ee
150: where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $n$ is the mean motion, and $P$ is
151: the orbital period, as it has been done in \citet{Schoedel_ea02}.
152:
153:
154: \subsection{Proper Motions and at Least a Single Measurement of Radial
155: Velocity of Star are Available}%
156:
157: In this case, {\em the problem is completely solved\/} if the value of star's
158: radial (line-of-sight) velocity, $V_r$, is significantly different from zero (more exactly,
159: from the radial velocity of the focus).
160:
161: A. {\em The sign of\/} $V_r$ {\em determines the sign of $i$.\/} Consequently,
162: this also breaks the ambiguity in the direction of rotation and in star's
163: location along the line of sight relative to the focus
164: \citep[e.g.,][]{Ghez_ea03}.
165:
166: B. {\em The absolute value of\/} $V_r$ {\em determines values\/} $R_0$ {\em
167: and\/} $M$. To gain greater insight into the fact of the matter, the problem
168: can be symbolically divided into two subproblems: (1) the determination of
169: orbital parameters from the proper motions alone and (2) the determination,
170: knowing the orbit, of the distance to focus ($R_0$) and of the central mass from
171: the measurement(s) of $V_r$. These subproblems are almost independent in the
172: case of modelling the motion of stars around Sgr~A*, since up to now proper
173: motion measurements are numerous, but $V_r$ ones are few or at all $V_r$
174: actually is single, for any S star with solved orbit. So, $V_r$ measurement(s)
175: contribute(s) almost nothing to the knowledge of orbit, and vice versa proper
176: motion measurements do not directly determine neither $R_0$ nor $M$. Thus,
177: such breaking the problem down seems to be quite realistic.
178:
179: If so, the value of $|V_r|$ may be considered as determining $R_0$ and
180: $M$ from known orbital parameters as follows.
181:
182: ({\bf i}) The orbit elements enable to find the ratio between $|V_r|$ and the total
183: space velocity, $V$, for the moment $t$:
184: \be\label{Vr/V}
185: V_r^2/V^2=\frac{[e\sin v\sin u +(1+e\cos v)\cos u]^2\msin^2i}{1+2e\cos v+e^2},
186: \ee
187: where $e$ is the eccentricity, $v$ is the true anomaly, $u=v+\omega$\/ is
188: the argument of latitude, $\omega$ is the argument of pericenter. A
189: value of $v$ can be calculated from classical formalism: $$
190: \tan(v/2)=\sqrt{(1+e)/(1-e)}\tan(E/2),
191: $$
192: $$
193: E-e\sin E={\cal M},\qquad {\cal M}=n(t-t_0)+{\cal M}_0,
194: $$
195: where $E$ and $\cal M$ are the eccentric and mean anomalies, correspondingly
196: \citep[e.g.,][]{Subbotin68}. Consequently, the knowledge of $|V_r|$ determines $V$.
197:
198:
199: ({\bf ii}) The value of total velocity $V$ can be expressed as
200: \be\label{V}
201: %V^2=n^2a^2\frac{1+e\cos v+e^2}{1-e^2}.
202: V=na\left(\frac{1+2e\cos v+e^2}{1-e^2}\right)^{1/2}.
203: \ee
204: From this equation, the value of $a$ {\em in linear units\/} can be
205: calculated. Then the ratio between $a$ values in linear and angular units
206: gives $R_0$:
207: \be\label{R0}
208: R_0=\frac{a\text{ [kpc]}}{a''}.
209: \ee
210:
211: ({\bf iii}) Using Eq.~(\ref{M}) with $a$ in linear units determines the
212: central mass $M$.
213:
214: \section{Systematic Error in $\mathbf{R_0}$ Owing to a Nonzero Motion of Orbital Focus
215: (Sgr~A*)}%$
216:
217: \subsection{Nonzero Radial Velocity of Sgr~A*}\label{Vr_ne_0}%$
218:
219: \citet{Eea03,Eea05} assume that the radial velocity of Sgr~A*,
220: $V_r^*\equiv V_r(\text{Sgr A*})$, relative to the Local Standard of Rest (LSR) is
221: zero. Neglect of a possible radial motion of Sgr~A* is equivalent to the
222: introducing a corresponding systematic error in all $V_r$ values. This
223: error is equal to a value of $V_r^*$ and is the same in
224: all measurements of $V_r$. From Eqs.~(\ref{Vr/V})--(\ref{R0}) follows
225: that the relative systematic error in $V_r$ velocity fully converts to
226: the relative systematic error in $R_0$, i.e.,
227: \be\label{delta}
228: \delta_{\text{sys}}\equiv\frac{\sigma_{\text{sys}}(V_r)}{|V_r|}=
229: \frac{\sigma_{\text{sys}}(R_0)}{R_0}.
230: \ee
231:
232: These simple considerations make it possible readily to evaluate the
233: systematic error in $R_0$ knowing typical values of $V_r$ used for the
234: determination of distance to S2/Sgr~A*. The first S2 radial velocity
235: measurement of $V_r=-510\pm 40$~km/s by \cite{Ghez_ea03} was obtained just 30
236: days after the star's passage through the pericenter point when $V_r$ was
237: changing very rapidly. Therefore, this measurement contributes to the solution
238: for $R_0$ much less then subsequent ones, hence the evaluation of
239: $\sigma_{\text{sys}}(R_0)$ must lean upon these latter. Besides, the
240: subsequent radial velocities, having substantially higher absolute values,
241: give a {\em lower\/} limit for $\sigma_{\text{sys}}(R_0)$.
242:
243: \citeauthor{Eea05}\ justify neglecting all three spatial velocity components
244: of Sgr~A* mainly by low limits of Sgr~A*'s proper motion of 20--60 km/s
245: \citep{Eea05}. Such values of radial velocities seem to be quite plausible for
246: massive objects in the Galactic center \cite[see][]{Blitz94}.
247: Table~\ref{tab_r0sys} presents values of systematical errors in $R_0$
248: calculated for possible Sgr~A*'s radial velocities of $V_r^*=20$ and 60~km/s
249: with $R_0=7.5$ and 8.0~kpc \citep{R93,N04,Tea06}. In Table~1, $\langle
250: V_r\rangle$ is the average of velocities $V_r$, used for estimation of $R_0$
251: in \cite{Eea05}, over the observational period.
252: \begin{table}[t]
253: \normalsize
254: \caption{Systematic error in $R_0$ because of
255: neglect of a possible radial motion of Sgr~A*}
256: \label{tab_r0sys}
257: \vskip 0.01\textheight
258: \begin{center}%\large%\scriptsize
259: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
260: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
261: %\hline
262: \hline
263: Observational & $\langle V_r\rangle$ & $V_r(\text{Sgr A*}) $ & $\delta_{\text{sys}}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\sigma_{\text{sys}}(R_0)$ (kpc)}\\%$
264: \cline{5-6}
265: Period & (km/s) & (km/s) & & $R_0=7.5$ kpc & $R_0=8$ kpc \\
266: %\hline
267: \hline
268: 2003 April--June & $-1500$ & 20 & 0.013 & 0.10 & 0.11 \\
269: & & 60 & 0.040 & 0.30 & 0.32 \\
270: 2004 July--August& $-1075$ & 20 & 0.019 & 0.14 & 0.15 \\
271: & & 60 & 0.056 & 0.42 & 0.45 \\
272: %\hline
273: \hline
274: \end{tabular}
275: \end{center}
276: \end{table}
277:
278: Table~\ref{tab_r0sys} demonstrates that {\em neglect of even moderately
279: low radial velocity of the orbital focus (Sgr~A*) relative to the LSR
280: can lead to a substantial systematic error in $R_0$\/}: values of
281: $V_r^*=20$--60~km/s result in systematic $R_0$ errors of 1.3--5.6\%,
282: i.e., {\bf (0.1--0.45)$\mathbf{\times (R_0/8)}$~kpc}\/, for current
283: typical star's velocities. Notice that the value of
284: $\sigma_{\text{sys}}(R_0)$ can not be reduced statistically since {\em
285: all\/} $V_r$ values is biased coherently by any nonzero velocity of
286: Sgr~A*. Only solving for $V_r(\text{Sgr A*}) $ can correct this
287: systematic error in $R_0$!
288:
289: It should be mentioned that \cite{Tea06} state that they already solved 3D
290: velocity of Sgr~A$*$, however, not presenting in their short paper any
291: details---no values of velocities and even no exact value of current point
292: estimate for $R_0$!
293:
294:
295: \subsection{Nonzero Proper Motion of Sgr~A*}%$
296:
297: The reference frame for proper motions \citeauthor{Eea03}\ have
298: established by measuring the positions of nine astrometric reference
299: stars relative to typically 50--200 stars of the stellar cluster
300: surrounding Sgr A*; the uncertainty of the reference frame is
301: 11.7~km/s \citep[see][]{Eea03}. The effect of nonzero proper motion Sgr
302: A$^*$ relative to this frame, $\vec\mu^{\,*}\equiv\vec\mu(\text{Sgr A*})$, can be
303: approximately estimated if to imagine that the value of $R_0$ is
304: determined, also on the basis of $V_r$'s measurement at a moment
305: $t$, not from Eqs.~(\ref{V}) and (\ref{R0}) but from the ratio between
306: star's linear velocity on the sky, $V_\mu$, and star's proper motion,
307: $\mu$, measured for the same moment $t$:
308: \be\label{R0mu}
309: R_0=\frac{V_\mu}{\mu}.
310: \ee
311: The value of $V_\mu$ is a known function of $V_r$, orbital elements, and
312: time:
313: \be\label{Vmu}
314: V_\mu^2=V^2-V_r^2=V_r^2(\Psi^{-2}-1),\qquad \Psi^2(t)\equiv \frac{V_r^2}{V^2},
315: \ee
316: where $\Psi^2(t)$ can be calculated from orbital elements [Eq.~(\ref{Vr/V})].
317: Any nonzero radial velocity $V_r^*$ and nonzero proper motion $\mu^*$ of
318: Sgr~A* are equivalent to the introducing systematic errors
319: $\varepsilon_{V_\mu}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mu}$ in $V_\mu$ and $\mu$,
320: correspondingly. Because values of $V_r^*$ and $\mu^*$ are independent and
321: unknown, their combined impact on an $R_0$ estimate can be described by the
322: formula of propagation of errors applied to Eq.~(\ref{R0mu}):
323: \bea
324: \varepsilon^2_{R_0}\equiv \sigma_{\text{sys}}^2(R_0)
325: &=&
326: \left(\frac{\varepsilon_{V_\mu}}{\mu}\right)^2+
327: \left(\frac{V_\mu}{\mu^2}\varepsilon_\mu\right)^2\nonumber\\
328: &=&(R_0/V_\mu)^2(\varepsilon^2_{V_\mu}+R_0^2\varepsilon^2_\mu).
329: \eea
330: %Here $\varepsilon_{V_\mu}$ and $\varepsilon_\mu$ present errors owing to nonzero
331: %$V_r^*$ and $\vec\mu^{\,*}$, correspondingly.
332: From Eq.~(\ref{Vmu}) follows
333: \be
334: \varepsilon_{V_\mu}=\varepsilon_{V_r}\sqrt{\Psi^{-2}-1},
335: \ee
336: if an uncertainty on orbit elements is ignored, as it was actually done in
337: section~\ref{Vr_ne_0} Then considering that $\varepsilon_{V_r}=|{V_r^*}|$ we have
338: \be
339: \varepsilon^2_{R_0}=
340: \frac{R_0^2}{V_r^2}\left({V_r^*}^2+R_0^2\varepsilon^2_\mu\frac{\Psi^2}{1-\Psi^2}\right).
341: \ee
342:
343: Value of $\varepsilon_\mu$ depends from the relative orientation of vectors
344: $\vec\mu$ and $\vec\mu^{\,*}$. In the general case $0 \le \varepsilon_\mu \le
345: \mu^*$. Hence, e.g., for equal radial and tangential components of
346: Sgr~A* motion, i.e., for $V_\mu^*=|V_r^*|$, or $\mu^*=|V_r^*|/R_0$,
347: \be
348: \max\varepsilon_{R_0}=\varepsilon_{R_0}(V_r^*)k_1,\qquad k_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\Psi^2}},
349: \ee
350: \be
351: \varepsilon_{R_0}(V_r^*)\equiv R_0\left|\frac{V_r^*}{V_r}\right|.
352: \ee
353: Here $\varepsilon_{R_0}(V_r^*)$ is the systematic error in $R_0$ owing to
354: only the radial velocity of Sgr~A* [see Eq.~(\ref{delta})].
355:
356: For ${V_\mu^*}^2=2{V_r^*}^2$, or $\mu^*=\sqrt{2}|V_r^*|/R_0$, i.e., for equal all
357: three Cartesian components of Sgr~A* motion,
358: \be
359: \max\varepsilon_{R_0}=\varepsilon_{R_0}(V_r^*)k_2,\qquad
360: k_2=\sqrt{\frac{1+\Psi^2}{1-\Psi^2}}.
361: \ee
362:
363: With the S2 orbit elements derived in \cite{Eea05}, $k_1\approx 1.4974$,
364: $k_2\approx 1.8666$.
365:
366: Thus, for a given $V_r$ the effect of nonzero proper motion of Sgr A* on
367: $R_0$, being a function of the true anomaly, ranges from zero to values
368: comparable to the effect of nonzero radial velocity of Sgr~A*, in the latter
369: case increasing measurably the total systematic error in $R_0$.
370:
371: \section{Conclusions}
372:
373: Simple considerations show that {\em neglect of even low radial velocity
374: of Sgr~A* relative to the LSR leads to a substantial systematic error
375: in\/} $R_0$---up to 6\%, i.e., ${\sim}0.5$~kpc, for plausible values of
376: Sgr~A* velocity. It is too much to consider the distance to Sgr~A*, not
377: to mention the value of $R_0$, as being established reliable from the
378: present results on modelling the S2/Sgr~A* system.
379:
380: A proper motion of Sgr~A* biases the distance value not so inevitably,
381: but in limiting cases can increase the systematic error in $R_0$ owing
382: to radial motion by factor up to ${\approx}1.5$--$1.9$ for similar
383: values of Sgr~A*'s tangential velocity.
384:
385: \acknowledgments
386: I am grateful to Prof.~K.~V.~Kholshevnikov and to Prof.~S.~A.~Kutuzov
387: for valuable remarks and discussions. The work is partly supported by
388: the Russian Pre\-si\-dent Grant for State Support of Leading Scientific
389: Schools of Russia no.\ NSh-4929.2006.2.
390:
391: \begin{thebibliography}{}
392:
393: \bibitem[{Blitz(1994)Blitz}]%
394: {Blitz94}
395: Blitz, L. 1994, in ASP Conf.\ Ser., Vol.~66, Physics of
396: the Gaseous and Stellar Disks of the Galaxy, ed.\
397: I. R. King (San Francisco: ASP), 1
398:
399: %\bibitem[{Duboshin(1976)Duboshin}]%
400: % {Duboshin76}
401: % Duboshin, G. N., ed. 1976, Reference Manual on Celestial Mechanics
402: % (Moscow: Nauka), 864~p (in Russian)
403:
404: \bibitem[{Eisenhauer et~al.(2005)Eisenhauer, Genzel, Alexander et~al.}]%
405: {Eea05}
406: Eisenhauer, F., Genzel, R., Alexander, T., Abuter, R.,
407: Paumard, T., Ott, T., Gilbert, A., Gillessen, S., Horrobin, M.,
408: Trippe, S., Bonnet, H., Dumas, C., Hubin, N., Kaufer, A.,
409: Kissler-Patig, M., Monnet, G., Str\"obele, S., Szeifert, T.,
410: Eckart, A., Sch\"odel, R., \& Zucker,~S.
411: 2005, \apj, 628, 246
412:
413: \bibitem[{Eisenhauer et~al.(2003)Eisenhauer, Sch\"odel, Genzel et~al.}]%
414: {Eea03}
415: Eisenhauer, F., Sch\"odel, R., Genzel, R., Ott, T.,
416: Tecza, M., Abuter, R., Eckart, A., \& Alexander T.
417: 2003, \apj, 597, L121 %in press (astro-ph 0306220)
418:
419: \bibitem[{Ghez et~al.(2003)Ghez, Duch\^ene, Vatthews et~al.}]%
420: {Ghez_ea03}
421: Ghez, A. M., Duch\^ene, G., Matthews, K., Hornstein, S. D., Tanner, A.,
422: Larkin, J., Morris, M., Becklin, E. E., Salim, S., Kremenek, T.,
423: Thompson, D., Soifer, B. T., Neugebauer, G., \& McLean, I.
424: 2003, \apj, 586, L127
425:
426: \bibitem[{Mouawad et~al.(2003)Mouawad, Eckart, Pfalzner et~al.}]%
427: {Mouawad_ea05}
428: Mouawad, N., Eckart, A., Pfalzner, S., Sch\"odel, R., Moultaka, J., \& Spurzem, R.
429: 2005, Ast.\ Nachr., 326, 83
430:
431: \bibitem[{Nikiforov(2004)Nikiforov}]%
432: {N04}
433: Nikiforov, I. I., 2004, in Order and Chaos in Stellar and Pla\-ne\-tary
434: Systems, ed.\ G. G. Byrd, K. V. Kholshevnikov, A. A. Myll\"ari, {\em
435: et al.}, ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ (San Francisco: ASP),
436: 316, 199
437:
438: \bibitem[{Nishiyama et~al.(2006)Nishiyama, Nagata, Sato et~al.}]%
439: {Nishiyama_ea06}
440: Nishiyama, S., Nagata, T., Sato, S., Kato, D., Nagayama, T., Kusakabe, N.,
441: Matsunaga, N., Naoi, T., Sugitani, K., \& Tamura, M.
442: 2006, \apj, 647, 1093
443:
444: \bibitem[Reid(1993)]{R93} Reid, M. J. 1993, \araa, 31, 345
445:
446: \bibitem[{Sch\"odel et~al.(2002)Sch\"odel, Ott, Genzel et~al.}]%
447: {Schoedel_ea02}
448: Sch\"odel, R., Ott, T., Genzel, R., Hofmann, R., Lehnert, M., Eckart, A.,
449: Mouawad, N., Alexander, T., Reid, M. J., Lenzen, R., Hartung, M.,
450: Lacombe, F., Rouan, D., Gendron, E., Rousset, G., Lagrange, A.-M.,
451: Brandner, W., Ageorges, N., Lidman, C., Moorwood, A. F. M,. Spyromilio, J.,
452: Hubin, N., \& Menten, K. M. 2002, Nature, 419, 694
453:
454: \bibitem[{Subbotin(1968)Subbotin}]%
455: {Subbotin68}
456: Subbotin, M. F. 1968, Introduction in Theoretical Astronomy
457: (Moscow: Nauka), 800~pp. (in Russian)
458:
459: \bibitem[{Trippe et~al.(2006)Trippe, Gillessen, Ott et~al.}]%
460: {Tea06}
461: Trippe, S., Gillessen, S., Ott, T., Eisenhauer, F., Paumard, T.,
462: Martins, F., Genzel, R., Sch\"odel, R., Eckart, A., \& Alexander, T.
463: 2006, Journal of Physics: Conf.\ Ser., 54, 288
464:
465: \bibitem[{Weinberg et~al.(2005)Weinberg, Milosavljevi\'c, \& Ghez}]%
466: {Weinberg_ea05}
467: Weinberg, N.\ N., Milosavljevi\'c M., \& Ghez, A.\ M.
468: 2005, in ASP Conf.\ Ser., Vol.~338, Astrometry in the Age of the Next
469: Generation of Large Telescopes, ed.\ P.\ K.\ Seidelmann \& A.\ K.\ B.\ Monet
470: (San Francisco: ASP), 252
471:
472: \end{thebibliography}
473: \end{document}
474: