1: %\documentclas%\documentclass[12pt,manuscript]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
4: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
5:
6: \newcommand{\ai}{$A_I$}
7: \newcommand{\av}{$A_V$}
8: \newcommand{\cf}{{\rm cf.}}
9: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
10: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.}
11: \newcommand{\hk}{$H-K$}
12: \newcommand{\hks}{$H-K_{\rm s}$}
13: \newcommand{\ic}{$I_{\rm C}$}
14: \newcommand{\icks}{$I_{\rm C}-K_{\rm s}$}
15: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
16: \newcommand{\ik}{$I-K$}
17: \newcommand{\iks}{$I-K_{\rm s}$}
18: \newcommand{\jhk}{$JHK_{\rm s}$}
19: \newcommand{\jk}{$J-K$}
20: \newcommand{\kh}{$K-H$}
21: \newcommand{\ks}{$K_{\rm s}$}
22: \newcommand{\lbol}{$L_{\rm bol}$}
23: \newcommand{\lsun}{$L_{\sun}$}
24: \newcommand{\lx}{$L_{\rm x}$}
25: \newcommand{\mdot}{$\dot{M}$}
26: \newcommand{\msun}{M$_{\sun}$}
27: \newcommand{\rc}{$R_{\rm C}$}
28: \newcommand{\ri}{$R-I_{\rm C}$}
29: \newcommand{\rsun}{R$_{\sun}$}
30: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{\rm eff}$}
31: \newcommand{\ubvri}{$UBVR_{\rm C}I_{\rm C}$}
32: \newcommand{\uv}{$U-V$}
33: \newcommand{\vi}{$V-I$}
34: \newcommand{\vsini}{$v \sin i$}
35: \newcommand{\mum}{$\mu$m}
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: \title{Spitzer/MIPS Observations of Stars in the Beta Pictoris
40: Moving Group}
41:
42: \slugcomment{Version from \today}
43:
44: \author{L.\ M.\ Rebull\altaffilmark{1},
45: K.\ R.\ Stapelfeldt\altaffilmark{2},
46: M.\ W.\ Werner\altaffilmark{2},
47: V.\ G.\ Mannings\altaffilmark{1},
48: C.\ Chen\altaffilmark{3},
49: J.\ R.\ Stauffer\altaffilmark{1},
50: P.\ S.\ Smith\altaffilmark{5},
51: I.\ Song\altaffilmark{1},
52: D.\ Hines\altaffilmark{4},
53: F.\ J.\ Low\altaffilmark{5}
54: }
55:
56:
57: \altaffiltext{1}{Spitzer Science Center/Caltech, M/S 220-6, 1200
58: E.\ California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125
59: (luisa.rebull@jpl.nasa.gov)}
60: \altaffiltext{2}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute
61: of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}
62: \altaffiltext{3}{NOAO, P.O.\ Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726-6732}
63: \altaffiltext{4}{Space Science Institute}
64: \altaffiltext{5}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N.
65: Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85721}
66:
67:
68:
69: \begin{abstract}
70:
71: We present Multiband Imaging Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS)
72: observations at 24 and 70 \mum\ for 30 stars, and at 160 \mum\ for a
73: subset of 12 stars, in the nearby ($\sim$30 pc), young ($\sim$12 Myr)
74: Beta Pictoris Moving Group (BPMG). In several cases, the new MIPS
75: measurements resolve source confusion and background contamination
76: issues in the IRAS data for this sample. We find that 7 members have
77: 24 \mum\ excesses, implying a debris disk fraction of 23\%, and that
78: at least 11 have 70 \mum\ excesses (disk fraction of $\geq$37\%).
79: Five disks are detected at 160 \mum\ (out of a biased sample of 12
80: stars observed), with a range of 160/70 flux ratios. The disk
81: fraction at 24 and 70 \mum, and the size of the excesses measured at
82: each wavelength, are both consistent with an ``inside-out'' infrared
83: excess decrease with time, wherein the shorter-wavelength excesses
84: disappear before longer-wavelength excesses, and consistent with the
85: overall decrease of infrared excess frequency with stellar age, as
86: seen in Spitzer studies of other young stellar groups. Assuming that
87: the infrared excesses are entirely due to circumstellar disks, we
88: characterize the disk properties using simple models and fractional
89: infrared luminosities. Optically thick disks, seen in the younger TW
90: Hya and $\eta$ Cha associations, are entirely absent in the BPMG.
91:
92: Additional flux density measurements at 24 and 70 \mum\ are reported
93: for nine Tucanae-Horologium Association member stars. Since this is
94: $<$20\% of the association membership, limited analysis on the
95: complete disk fraction of this association is possible.
96:
97: \end{abstract}
98:
99:
100: \keywords{stars:circumstellar matter, stars: individual (Beta Pic
101: Moving Group) }
102:
103:
104:
105: \section{Introduction}
106: \label{sec:intro}
107:
108: In recent years, several nearby ($\lesssim$100 pc) young
109: ($\lesssim$200 Myr) stellar associations have been identified. These
110: groupings provide a special opportunity to study ``up close'' the
111: evolution of circumstellar material at a potentially crucial phase of
112: disk evolution, namely that epoch when planets are thought to be
113: forming. With the advent of the {\em Spitzer} Space Telescope (Werner
114: \etal\ 2004), specifically the Multiband Imaging Photometer for
115: Spitzer (MIPS; Rieke \etal\ 2004), astronomers now can easily study
116: the properties of the stars in those nearby groupings at much lower
117: disk excess levels than was possible with 2MASS or ISO. In some
118: cases, these stars are close enough, and the disks big enough, that
119: one can spatially resolve the disk structure, providing even more
120: information about the disk properties. While it is thought that all
121: stars start with massive, optically thick, primordial disks, older
122: stars possess much less massive, optically thin, second-generation,
123: debris disks, where the dust to primary star luminosity ratio $L_{\rm
124: dust}/L_{*} \lesssim 10^{-3}$ (see, e.g., Meyer \etal\ 2007 and
125: references therein). In this phase, it is thought that
126: planetesimal-mass bodies have already formed in the disk; collisions
127: of these bodies can replenish the dust in those systems. The evolution
128: of mid- to far-infrared-emitting dust grains a few microns in size
129: within debris disks has been a subject of much study (see, e.g.,
130: Bryden \etal\ 2006, Su \etal\ 2006, Chen \etal\ 2005, Werner \etal\
131: 2006 and references therein). The measurement of the overall disk
132: fraction in clusters of known age (and ultimately measurement of the
133: dust distribution in individual systems via direct imaging) is key to
134: understanding disk evolution and planet formation.
135:
136: The disk around $\beta$ Pictoris has been known since the mid 1980s
137: when it was one of the first debris disks discovered by the Infrared
138: Astonomy Satellite (IRAS) mission (Gillett 1986, Paresce \& Burrows
139: 1987). Little was known about $\beta$ Pic when its infrared excess
140: was discovered. It was not located within an obvious star-forming
141: region or cluster, and even its age was poorly constrained. New
142: observations in recent years have placed $\beta$ Pic in better
143: context. A number of other stars have been discovered that share
144: $\beta$ Pic's space motion and are believed to be coeval with $\beta$
145: Pic (\eg, Barrado y Navascues \etal\ 1999; Zuckerman \etal\ 2001 and
146: references therein). At only $\sim$30 pc away with an age of $\sim$12
147: Myr, this so-called Beta Pic Moving Group (BPMG) is the nearest
148: identified young stellar association, and has been studied
149: intensively. Zuckerman \& Song (2004) and subsequent authors have
150: identified 30 BPMG member or potential member stellar systems.
151:
152: This study presents MIPS observations at 24, 70, and 160 \mum\ of all
153: of the currently-known BPMG members, as well as several members from
154: the Tucanae-Horologium Association, another nearby ($\sim$50 pc) young
155: ($\sim$30 Myr) group (Zuckerman \& Song 2004). We first present the
156: observational details (\S\ref{sec:obs}), and then discuss
157: identification of stars with infrared excesses
158: (\S\ref{sec:findingdisks}). We fit some simple models in
159: \S\ref{sec:models} to characterize the disk properties for the stars
160: we have found with excesses. Finally, we discuss the sample as a whole
161: in \S\ref{sec:disc}, and summarize our conclusions in
162: \S\ref{sec:concl}.
163:
164:
165:
166: \clearpage
167: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllllll}
168: \tablecaption{Nearby young association members in this study}
169: \label{tab:targets}
170: \tablewidth{0pt}
171: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
172: \rotate
173: \tablehead{
174: \colhead{Ass'n\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{HIP} & \colhead{HD} &
175: \colhead{HR} & \colhead{GJ} & \colhead{other name}
176: & \colhead{name used here} & \colhead{distance} &
177: \colhead{spectral} &\colhead{$V$}&\colhead{\ks} \\
178: & \colhead{number} & \colhead{number} & \colhead{number} &
179: \colhead{number} & & & \colhead{(pc)} & \colhead{type} &
180: \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)}}
181: \startdata
182: BPMG & 560 & 203 & 9 & & & HR 9 & 39.1 & F2 IV & 6.2 & 5.24 \\
183: BPMG & 10679 & \tablenotemark{b} & & & & HIP 10679 & 34.0 & G2 V &7.8& 6.26 \\
184: BPMG & 10680 & 14082 & & & & HD 14082 & 39.4 & F5 V &7.0& 5.79 \\
185: BPMG & 11437 & & & & AG Tri A & AG Tri A & 42.3 & K8 &10.1& 7.08 \\
186: BPMG & 11437 & & & & AG Tri B & AG Tri B & 42.3 & M0 &\ldots& 7.92 \\
187: BPMG & 12545 & & & & BD 05d378 & HIP 12545 & 40.5 & M0 &10.4& 7.07 \\
188: BPMG & 21547 & 29391 & 1474 & & 51 Eri & 51 Eri & 29.8 & F0 V &5.2& 4.54 \\
189: BPMG & & & & 3305 & & GJ 3305 & 29.8 & M0.5 &10.6& 6.41 \\
190: BPMG & 23309 & & & & CD-57d1054 & HIP 23309 & 26.3 & K8 &10.1& 6.24 \\
191: BPMG & 23418 & & & 3322 & & GJ 3322 A/B & 32.1 & M3 V &11.7& 6.37 \\
192: BPMG & 25486 & 35850 & 1817 & & & HR 1817 & 26.8 & F7/8 V &6.3& 4.93 \\
193: BPMG & 27321 & 39060 & & & $\beta$ Pic & Beta Pic & 19.3 & A5 V &3.9& 3.53 \\
194: BPMG & 29964 & 45081 & & & AO Men & AO Men & 38.5 & K7 &9.9& 6.81 \\
195: BPMG & 76629 & 139084 & & & V343 Nor A & V343 Nor A/B & 39.8 & K0 V &8.2& 5.85 \\
196: BPMG & 79881 & 146624 & 6070 & & & HR 6070 & 43.1 & A0 (V) &4.8& 4.74 \\
197: BPMG & 84586 & 155555 & & & V824 Ara A/B & V824 Ara A/B & 31.4 & K1 VP &6.9& 4.70 \\
198: BPMG & 84586 & 155555 & & & V824 Ara C & V824 Ara C & 31.4 & M4.5 &12.7& 7.63 \\
199: BPMG & 88399 & 164249 & & & & HD 164249 & 46.9 & F5 V &7.0& 5.91 \\
200: BPMG & 88726A & 165189 & 6749 & & & HR 6749/HR 6750 & 43.9 & A5 V &5.0& 4.39 \\
201: BPMG & 92024 & 172555 & 7012 & & & HR 7012 & 29.2 & A5 IV/V &4.8& 4.30 \\
202: BPMG & & & & & CD-64D1208AB & CD-64D1208 A/B & 29.2 & K7 &10.4& 6.10 \\
203: BPMG & 92680 & 174429 & & & PZ Tel & PZ Tel & 49.7 & K0 VP &8.4& 6.37 \\
204: BPMG & 95261 & 181296 & 7329 & & $\eta$ Tel & eta Tel A/B & 47.7 & A0 V &5.1& 5.01 \\
205: BPMG & 95270 & 181327 & & & & HD 181327 & 50.6 & F5/6 V &7.0& 5.91 \\
206: BPMG & 102141 & 196982 & & 799 & AT Mic & AT Mic A/B & 10.2 & M4.5 &10.3& 4.94 \\
207: BPMG & 102409 & 197481 & & 803 & AU Mic & AU Mic & 9.9 & M1 Ve &8.8& 4.53 \\
208: BPMG & 103311 & 199143 & & & & HD199143 A/B & 47.7 & F8 V &7.3& 5.81 \\
209: BPMG & & 358623 & & & AZ Cap A, BD-17d6128 & AZ Cap A/B & 47.7 & K7/M0 &10.6& 7.04 \\
210: BPMG & 112312 & & & & WW PsA A & WW PsA A & 23.6 & M4e &12.2& 6.93 \\
211: BPMG & 112312 & & & & WW PsA B & WW PsA B & 23.6 & M4.5e &13.4& 7.79 \\
212: \hline
213: Tuc-Hor & 1113 & 987 & & & & HD 987 & 43.7 & G6 V & 8.7& 6.96 \\
214: Tuc-Hor & 3556 & & & & & HIP 3556 & 38.5 & M3 & 12.3& 7.62 \\
215: Tuc-Hor & & & & & CPD-64d120 & CPD-64d120 & 29.2 & K7 & 9.5& 8.01 \\
216: Tuc-Hor & 7805 & 10472 & & & & HD 10472 & 66.6 & F2 IV/V &7.6 & 6.63 \\
217: Tuc-Hor & 9685 & 12894 & & & & HD 12894 & 47.2 & F2 V &6.4 & 5.45 \\
218: Tuc-Hor & 10602 & 14228 & 674 & & $\phi$ Eri & Phi Eri & 47.5 & B8 V & 3.6& 4.13 \\
219: Tuc-Hor & & & & & GSC 8056-0482 & GSC 8056-0482 & 30.9 & M3 Ve &12.1& 7.50 \\
220: Tuc-Hor & 12394 & 16978 & 806 & & $\epsilon$ Hya & Eps Hya & 47.0 & B9 V &4.1& 4.25 \\
221: Tuc-Hor & 101612 & 195627 & 7848 & & & HR 7848 & 27.6 & F0 V &4.8& 4.04 \\
222: \enddata
223: \tablenotetext{a}{The abbreviations ``BPMG" and ``Tuc-Hor" denote
224: the Beta Pic Moving Group and the Tucanae-Horologium associations, respectively.}
225: \tablenotetext{b}{Some references list this object as HD 14082B.}
226: \end{deluxetable}
227: \clearpage
228: \thispagestyle{empty}
229: \begin{deluxetable}{cllllrrr}
230: \tablecaption{Summary of observations}
231: \label{tab:observations}
232: \tablewidth{0pt}
233: \rotate
234: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
235: \tablehead{
236: \colhead{Spitzer} & \colhead{PI} & \colhead{AORKEY} & \colhead{date of
237: observation} &
238: \colhead{object(s)} & \colhead{24 \mum\ integ.} & \colhead{70 \mum\ integ.} &
239: \colhead{160 \mum\ integ.} \\
240: \colhead{program id} & & \colhead{(Spitzer Archive identifier)} && & \colhead{time (s)} & \colhead{time (s)} & \colhead{time (s)}}
241: \startdata
242: 102 & Werner & 9018624, 9020928 & 2005-12-01, 2004-06-21& HR 9 & 48 & 126 & 63 \\
243: 3600 & Song & 11256064 &2005-01-29& HD 14082, HIP 10679 & 48 & 231 & 0 \\
244: 102 & Werner & 9019392, 9020672&2005-08-29, 2006-02-18& AG Tri A/B & 48 & 231 & 63 \\
245: 102 & Werner & 9017600, 9020160&2005-09-05, 2006-02-17& HIP 12545 & 48 & 231 & 63 \\
246: 102 & Werner & 9019904 &2004-09-16& 51 Eri, GJ 3305 & 48 & 231 & 0 \\
247: 102 & Werner & 9024000 &2004-11-08& HIP 23309 & 48 & 126 & 0 \\
248: 102 & Werner & 9023744 &2004-10-14& GJ 3322 A/B & 48 & 126 & 0 \\
249: 148 & FEPS & 5252352, 5446656, 5447424& 2005-02-27 (all 3) & HR 1817 & 276 & 693 & 84 \\
250: 80 & Werner & 8970240, 12613632, 4884992& 2004-03-20, 2005-04-04, 2004-02-21& $\beta$ Pic & 36 & 252 & 27 \\
251: 148 & FEPS & 5222656 & 2004-10-13& AO Men & 92 & 881 & 84 \\
252: 148 & FEPS & 5223424 & 2004-07-29 & V343 Nor A/B & 92 & 231 & 0 \\
253: 10 & Jura & 3720704 & 2004-02-25 & HR 6070 & 48 & 126 & 0 \\
254: 84 & Jura & 4813056 & 2004-09-17& V824 Ara A/B/C & 48 & 126 & 0 \\
255: 102 & Werner & 9019136, 9023488& 2005-08-30, 2004-03-17 & HD 164249 & 48 & 101 & 63 \\
256: 102 & Werner & 9023232 & 2004-09-23& HR 6749/HR 6750 & 48 & 231 & 0 \\
257: 10 & Jura & 3723776 & 2004-04-07& HR 7012, CD-64D1208A/B & 48 & 126 & 0 \\
258: 72 & Low & 4554496 & 2004-04-06& PZ Tel & 180 & 545 & 0 \\
259: 57 & Rieke & 8934912, 8935168, 8935424 &2004-04-09, 2004-04-09, 2004-04-07 & $\eta$ Tel & 48 & 100 & 76 \\
260: 72 & Low & 4556032 & 2004-04-06 & HD 181327 & 92 & 126 & 63 \\
261: 80 & Werner & 4637184 & 2004-05-11& AT Mic A/B & 48 & 231 & 0 \cr
262: 3657 & Graham & 11403008& 2005-05-20& AU Mic (160 only) & 0 & 0 & 629 \cr
263: 80 & Werner & 4637440 & 2004-05-02& AU Mic & 48 & 231 & 0 \cr
264: 148 & FEPS & 5254656 & 2004-10-13& HD 199143 A/B & 92 & 231 & 84 \cr
265: 80 & Werner & 4643840 & 2004-05-11& AZ Cap A/B & 48 & 545 & 0 \cr
266: 102 & Werner & 9021696 & 2004-05-31& WW PsA A/B & 48 & 126 & 0 \\
267: \hline
268: 102 & Werner & 9022976 & 2004-11-05&HD 987 & 48 & 126 & 0 \\
269: 102 & Werner & 9022720 &2004-11-03& HIP 3556 & 48 & 231 & 0 \\
270: 102 & Werner & 9022464 &2004-05-11& CPD-64d120 & 48 & 0 & 0 \\
271: 102 & Werner & 4945152 &2004-11-07& HD 10472 & 48 & 69 & 0 \\
272: 102 & Werner & 9022208 &2004-11-07& HD 12894 & 48 & 126 & 0 \\
273: 102 & Werner & 9021952 &2004-11-08& $\phi$ Eri & 48 & 231 & 0 \\
274: 102 & Werner & 9021440 & 2004-11-07& GSC 8056-482 & 48 & 126 & 0 \\
275: 102 & Werner & 9021184 & 2005-06-19& $\epsilon$ Hya & 48 & 231 & 0 \\
276: 102 & Werner & 9020416 & 2004-04-13& HR 7848 & 48 & 69 & 0 \\
277: \enddata
278: \end{deluxetable}
279: \clearpage
280:
281:
282: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
283: \tablecaption{Results: MIPS flux densities}
284: \label{tab:results}
285: \tablewidth{0pt}
286: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
287: \tablehead{
288: \colhead{object} & \colhead{photospheric} &\colhead{measured}
289: & \colhead{photospheric} &\colhead{measured}
290: & \colhead{photospheric} &\colhead{measured}\\
291: & \colhead{24 \mum\ (mJy)} &\colhead{24 \mum\ (mJy)\tablenotemark{a}}
292: & \colhead{70 \mum\ (mJy)}
293: & \colhead{70 \mum\ (mJy)\tablenotemark{b}}
294: & \colhead{160 \mum\ (mJy)} &\colhead{160 \mum\
295: (mJy)\tablenotemark{c}} }
296: \startdata
297: HR 9& 60& 109\tablenotemark{d}& 7.0&$ $ 61\tablenotemark{d}& 1.3&$<$ 27 \\
298: HIP 10679& 23& 39\tablenotemark{d}& 2.7& 43.0\tablenotemark{d}& 0.5&$ $\ldots\\
299: HD 14082 & 36& 37 & 4.2&$<$ 18 & 0.8&$ $\ldots\\
300: AG Tri A& 14& 17 & 1.7&$ $ 75.1\tablenotemark{d}& 0.3&$<$ 35 \\
301: AG Tri B& 7.2& 7.1 & 0.9&$<$ 23 & 0.2&$<$ 35 \\
302: HIP 12545& 16& 12 & 1.9&$<$ 25 & 0.4&$<$ 50 \\
303: 51 Eri& 114& 115 & 13.2&$<$ 23 & 2.5&$ $\ldots\\
304: GJ 3305& 29& 24 & 3.4&$<$ 23 & 0.6&$ $\ldots\\
305: HIP 23309& 34& 27 & 4.0&$<$ 24 & 0.8&$ $\ldots\\
306: GJ 3322 A/B& 30& 28 & 3.8&$<$ 39 & 0.7&$ $\ldots\\
307: HR 1817& 79& 79 & 9.2&$ $ 44.7\tablenotemark{d}& 1.7&$<$ 77 \\
308: $\beta$ Pic\tablenotemark{e}& 280& 7276\tablenotemark{d}& 32&$ $12990\tablenotemark{d}& 5.9& 3646\tablenotemark{d}\\
309: AO Men& 15& 15 & 1.7&$<$ 8 & 0.3&$<$ 28 \\
310: V343 Nor A/B& 34& 34 & 4.0&$<$ 86 & 0.7&$ $\ldots\\
311: HR 6070& 90& 97 & 10.4&$<$ 77 & 1.9&$ $\ldots\\
312: V824 Ara A/B& 100& 97 & 11.9&$<$ 25 & 2.2&$ $\ldots\\
313: V824 Ara C& 9.9& 11 & 1.3&$<$ 25 & 0.2&$ $\ldots\\
314: HD 164249& 32& 76\tablenotemark{d}& 3.7&$ $624\tablenotemark{d}& 0.7& 104\tablenotemark{d} \\
315: HR 6749/HR 6750& 120& 113 & 14.4&$<$ 27 & 2.7&$ $\ldots\\
316: HR 7012& 130& 766\tablenotemark{d}& 15.6&$ $197\tablenotemark{d}& 2.9&$ $\ldots\\
317: CD-64D1208 A/B& 35& 30 & 4.2&$<$ 23 & 0.8&$ $\ldots\\
318: PZ Tel& 21& 21 & 2.5&$ $ 17.4\tablenotemark{d}& 0.5&$ $\ldots\\
319: $\eta$ Tel A/B\tablenotemark{e}& 70& 382\tablenotemark{d}& 8.1&$ $409\tablenotemark{d}& 1.5&$ $ 68\tablenotemark{d}\\
320: HD 181327& 32& 195\tablenotemark{d}& 3.7&$ $1468\tablenotemark{d}& 0.7&$ $ 658\tablenotemark{d} \\
321: AT Mic A/B& 118& 116 & 14.9&$<$ 18 & 2.9&$ $\ldots\\
322: AU Mic& 164& 143 & 19.4&$ $205\tablenotemark{d}& 3.7&$ $ 168\tablenotemark{d} \\
323: HD 199143 A/B& 35& 35 & 4.0&$<$ 22 & 0.8&$<$ 31 \\
324: AZ Cap A/B& 15& 13 & 1.8&$<$ 12 & 0.3&$ $\ldots\\
325: WW PsA A& 19& 18 & 2.4&$<$ 27 & 0.5&$ $\ldots\\
326: WW PsA B& 8.6& 9.1 & 1.1&$<$ 27 & 0.2&$ $\ldots\\
327: \hline
328: HD 987& 12& 12 & 1.4&$<$ 21 & 0.3&$ $\ldots\\
329: HIP 3556& 9.5& 8.4 & 1.2&$<$ 16 & 0.2&$ $\ldots\\
330: CPD-64d120& 6.1& 4.9 & 0.7&$ $\ldots & 0.1&$ $\ldots\\
331: HD 10472& 17& 26\tablenotemark{d}& 1.9&$ $127\tablenotemark{d}& 0.4&$ $\ldots\\
332: HD 12894& 49& 46 & 5.8&$<$ 20 & 1.1&$ $\ldots\\
333: $\phi$ Eri& 150& 170 & 17.3&$<$ 17 & 3.2&$ $\ldots\\
334: GSC 8056-0482& 11& 9.0 & 1.3&$<$ 24 & 0.3&$ $\ldots\\
335: $\epsilon$ Hya& 140& 124 & 15.9&$ $ 12.6 & 3.0&$ $\ldots\\
336: HR 7848& 179& 186 & 20.8&$ $609\tablenotemark{d}& 3.9&$ $\ldots\\
337: \enddata
338: \tablenotetext{a}{The systematic uncertainty on our 24 \mum\ flux
339: densities is estimated to be 4\% (Engelbracht \etal\ 2008).}
340: \tablenotetext{b}{The systematic uncertainty on our 70 \mum\ flux
341: densities is estimated to be 10\% (Gordon \etal\ 2008; see also
342: discussion in text). Upper limits quoted here are 3-$\sigma$.}
343: \tablenotetext{c}{The systematic uncertainty on our 160 \mum\ flux
344: densities is estimated to be 12\% (Stansberry \etal\ 2008). Upper
345: limits quoted here are 3-$\sigma$.}
346: \tablenotetext{d}{Infrared excess and inferred disk at this
347: wavelength; see text for discussion as to how these disk candidates
348: were selected.}
349: \tablenotetext{e}{The 24 and 70 \mum\ flux densities are from Su
350: \etal\ (2006); see text.}
351: \end{deluxetable}
352: \clearpage
353:
354:
355: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
356: \epsscale{0.8}
357: \plotone{f1.eps}
358: \caption{Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) for all the BPMG targets
359: discussed in this paper, part 1. The $x$-axis plots log of the wavelength in
360: microns, and the $y$ axis plots log($\lambda F_{\lambda}$) in cgs
361: units (ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$). Points gleaned from the literature
362: are diamonds, boxes are detections or upper limits from IRAS, and
363: circles are new MIPS points. Downward-pointing arrows indicate upper
364: limits. The stellar model that is plotted is selected from the
365: Kurucz-Lejeune grid (see text for discussion), normalized
366: to the \ks\ band as observed; the simple disk model shown here is
367: described in the text. The dotted line is the disk component alone,
368: and the dashed line is the sum of the disk plus star model when more
369: than one data point describes the disk.}
370: \label{fig:seds1}
371: \end{figure*}
372:
373: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
374: \epsscale{0.8}
375: \plotone{f2.eps}
376: \caption{SEDs for all the BPMG targets discussed in this paper, part 2.}
377: \label{fig:seds2}
378: \end{figure*}
379:
380: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
381: \epsscale{0.8}
382: \plotone{f3.eps}
383: \caption{SEDs for all the BPMG targets discussed in this paper, part 3.}
384: \label{fig:seds3}
385: \end{figure*}
386:
387: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
388: \epsscale{0.8}
389: \plotone{f4.eps}
390: \caption{SEDs for all the Tuc-Hor targets discussed in this paper.
391: Notation is as in previous plots.}
392: \label{fig:seds4}
393: \end{figure*}
394: \clearpage
395:
396: \section{Observations, Data Reduction, and Ancillary Data}
397: \label{sec:obs}
398: \subsection{Target selection and observations}
399:
400: Many individual member stars from nearby young stellar clusters are
401: scattered among several of the programs originating with the Spitzer
402: guaranteed-time observers (GTO). The Spitzer GTO program 102
403: (P.I.-M.\ Werner) observed 13 BPMG stars or systems, along with nine
404: stars (or systems) thought to be Tucanae-Horologium association
405: members (where membership for both associations is as reported by
406: Zuckerman \& Song 2004). As the observers of record for this program,
407: we felt it important to report the observations for all of the stars
408: from this program. In order to enhance the discussion, we assembled a
409: list of all of the stars or stellar systems thought to be members of
410: the BPMG, based on Zuckerman \& Song (2004). We retrieved data for
411: the remaining stars/star systems of the BPMG out of the Spitzer
412: Archive. Nearly all of these observations come from GTO programs and
413: were obtained over the first 3 years of the mission.
414:
415: The 39 stars or systems discussed in this paper -- all the targets
416: from program 102, plus the remaining Beta Pic member stars from the
417: archive -- are listed in Table~1, along with cluster membership. Note
418: that binary systems unresolved by MIPS are listed together, e.g, GJ
419: 3322 A/B, and that these unresolved binaries are effectively treated
420: as single stars throughout the rest of this paper. The implications of
421: this decision will be discussed further below. The Tuc-Hor stars are
422: included at the bottom of this table (and the next two tables),
423: separated from the BPMG stars by a line.
424:
425: All of the Spitzer archive identifications (AORKEYs) and other
426: assorted program information (including program IDs and dates of
427: observation) are listed in Table~2. Since the observations were
428: acquired from a variety of programs, the integration times used for
429: each target are not uniform (see Table~2). All targets were observed
430: at 24 \mum, all but one at 70 \mum\ (CPD-64d120), and a subset of
431: twelve sources, not selected uniformly, were observed at 160 \mum. All
432: objects are detected at good signal-to-noise ($>$25) at 24 \mum; there
433: are many upper limits at both 70 and 160 \mum.
434:
435: Since we assembled our list of members from Zuckerman \& Song (2004),
436: we are obviously missing any undiscovered members. Thus, we cannot
437: assert that our study is complete over all possible BPMG members. As
438: discussed in Song \etal\ (2008) and Torres \etal\ (2006), surveys of
439: young stars near Earth form distinctive groupings in
440: age-velocity-position space, and young members earlier than M are
441: easily identified via, e.g., lithium absorption. It is unlikely that
442: there are many undiscovered members earlier than M. However, it is
443: possible that there are undiscovered M star members. These
444: intrinsically fainter M stars often lack parallax measurements, and
445: moreover are often harder to confirm as members, because they, for
446: example, deplete Li faster than higher-mass stars.
447:
448: Because the BPMG is physically close to us, it subtends a large angle
449: on the sky, and finding additional members often requires searching
450: over a large area. However, co-moving companions may be found in
451: close proximity to known members, as evidenced by the number of known
452: companions in the BPMG. Our observations cover relatively small
453: regions around each member star, so we have a chance of finding these
454: sorts of close companions. Several observations detect additional
455: objects in the field near BPMG members; since these objects are bright
456: enough to be detected in these shallow observations, these objects
457: could also be potential association members, and the argument for BPMG
458: membership might be made if these objects have infrared excesses. We
459: examined our data for any additional stars with excesses
460: serendipitously included within the Spitzer field of view, but none
461: were detected; see the Appendix for discussion of each individual
462: case.
463:
464: \subsection{Data reduction}
465:
466: All of the observations were conducted in MIPS photometry mode. Most
467: of the observations were conducted using the small field photometry
468: astronomical observing template (AOT) and, at 70 \mum, the default
469: pixel scale. For these targets (including those in the literature),
470: we reprocessed the data in a uniform manner in order to limit
471: systematics introduced by slightly different reduction methods. Two
472: objects, $\eta$ Tel and $\beta$ Pic, were observed using observing
473: strategies designed for extended objects (e.g., customized sub-pixel
474: dithering, and 70 \mum\ fine scale). We note for completeness that,
475: while $\beta$ Pic is well-resolved at MIPS wavelengths, $\eta$ Tel is
476: not. Because these data must be handled differently anyway, rather
477: than reprocessing the data, we use the MIPS photometry at 24 and 70
478: \mum\ as reported by Su \etal\ (2006) for both $\eta$ Tel and $\beta$
479: Pic.
480:
481: We started with the Spitzer Science Center (SSC) pipeline-produced
482: basic calibrated data (BCDs), version S14. (For a description of the
483: pipeline, see Gordon \etal\ 2005.) Since we treated each MIPS channel
484: differently, each is discussed separately below.
485:
486: Our detections and upper limits are listed in Table~3. Note that,
487: while every target was detected at 24 \mum, one target was not
488: observed at 70 \mum\ (CPD-64d120), and more than half the sample was
489: not observed at 160 \mum. For most of our sample, this is the first
490: time that MIPS fluxes have appeared in the literature. For the four
491: FEPS stars that are part of the FEPS final delivery catalog (available
492: on the SSC website) and for the three stars reported in Chen \etal\
493: (2005), our fluxes are consistent within the reported errors.
494:
495: \subsubsection{24 \mum}
496:
497: All targets were observed at 24 \mum. For each observation, we
498: constructed a 24 \mum\ mosaic from the pipeline BCDs using the SSC
499: mosaicking and point-source extraction (MOPEX) software (Makovoz \&
500: Marleau 2005), with a pixel scale of 2.5$\arcsec$ px$^{-1}$, close to
501: the native pixel scale of $2.49\arcsec\times2.60\arcsec$. We
502: extracted sources from the 24 \mum\ mosaics using the astronomical
503: point-source extraction (APEX) 1-frame portion of MOPEX, with point
504: response function (PRF)-fitting photometry of the image mosaics. All
505: of our targets were detected at good signal to noise ($>$25) at 24
506: \mum. The systematic uncertainty in the zero-point of the conversion
507: from instrumental units to calibrated flux units is estimated to be
508: 4\% (Engelbracht \etal\ 2008); the statistical error is much smaller,
509: and so is not tabulated.
510:
511: \subsubsection{70 \mum}
512:
513: At 70 \mum, the SSC pipeline produces two sets of BCDs; one is where
514: the processing is done on the basis of individual BCDs, and the other
515: has additional spatial and temporal filters applied that attempt to
516: remove instrumental signatures in an automated fashion. (For a
517: description of the pipeline, see Gordon \etal\ 2005.) We used the
518: filtered BCDs to construct mosaics for all of the targets at 70 \mum,
519: resampled to 4$\arcsec$ px$^{-1}$, about half the native pixel scale
520: of $9.85\arcsec\times10.06\arcsec$.
521:
522: We extracted sources from the 70 \mum\ mosaics again using the APEX
523: 1-frame portion of MOPEX. For the sources that were detected, most of
524: the fluxes we report are from PRF-fitting; some bright source fluxes
525: are better determined using aperture photometry instead. In those
526: cases, an aperture of 32$\arcsec$ and an aperture correction
527: (multiplicative factor) of 1.295 was used. If no believable object
528: was seen by eye at the expected location, it was taken to be a
529: non-detection, and this aperture was laid down at the expected
530: location of the target, plus two other nearby locations $\sim1\arcmin$
531: north and south of the target position. Based on these measurements,
532: an asssessment of the 1-$\sigma$ scatter per (native) pixel in nearby
533: background sky brightness was made over the aperture, and that scatter
534: was multiplied by 3 to obtain 3-$\sigma$ upper limits. The same
535: aperture correction was used as for the aperture photometry of
536: detected objects.
537:
538: All but one of the targets was observed at 70 \mum. CPD-64d120 was
539: not observed at 70 \mum\ because its expected photospheric flux was
540: far below the sensitivity that could be obtained within a reasonable
541: amount of integration time. As can be seen in Table~3, 14 objects
542: were detected and 24 were not detected (3-$\sigma$ upper limits are in
543: Table~3).
544:
545: The systematic uncertainty in the conversion of instrumental units to
546: calibrated flux units is estimated to be 5\% for default-scale
547: photometry by Gordon \etal\ (2008). Gordon \etal\ are working with
548: PSF fitting; we have some PSF fitting and some aperture photometry.
549: In addition, some of our targets are fainter than the ones used in
550: Gordon \etal, and some of our targets are observed in fine-scale
551: photometry mode. To be conservative, then, we take the systematic
552: uncertainty to be 10\%. Most of our objects are seen at
553: signal-to-noise ratios $>$ 10; our statistical error on detections is
554: much smaller than the systematic error of 10\% in most cases, so is
555: not reported. In two cases, PZ Tel and $\epsilon$ Hya, the
556: statistical error (as determined with similar methdology to that for
557: the upper limits above) is comparable to the systematic error. PZ Tel
558: is detected with a signal-to-noise ratio of $\sim$10 (uncertainty of 2
559: mJy on the 17.4 mJy detection in Table 3), and $\epsilon$ Hya is
560: detected with a signal-to-noise ratio of $\sim$3 (uncertainty of 4 mJy
561: on the 12.6 mJy detection in Table 3).
562:
563:
564: Several of our targets have serendipitously imaged detections in the
565: 5$\arcmin\times$2.5$\arcmin$ field of view (see
566: Appendix~\ref{sec:indobj}). The density of extragalactic background
567: objects with brightness $\ge$ 15 mJy (the faintest 70 \mum\ detection
568: of a BPMG object achieved in this study) is 0.02 arcmin$^{-2}$ (Dole
569: \etal\ 2004). This leads to an expectation of 10 unrelated background
570: objects appearing in our data. However, these are easily
571: distinguished from our target objects by their offset positions; the
572: probability is $< 1\%$ that a background object would be coincident
573: with any of our targets (see, e.g., Smith \etal\ 2006).
574:
575:
576: \subsubsection{160 \mum}
577:
578: Twelve targets were observed at 160 \mum. This subset of 12
579: targets was not selected uniformly for observation at 160 \mum. For
580: the targets that were observed as part of program 102, those objects
581: expected to be brightest and seen at 70 \mum\ were selected for
582: observation at 160 \mum. For the objects taken from other programs,
583: we have no way of reconstructing why these targets were selected for
584: observation.
585:
586: The MIPS data analysis tool (DAT) software (version 3.06; Gordon
587: \etal\ 2005) was used to calibrate the raw data ramp slopes, apply a
588: flat field correction, and mosaic the images in detector coordinates
589: at an image scale of 8$\arcsec$ pixel$^{-1}$ (half the native plate
590: scale of $15.96\arcsec\times18.04\arcsec$). The data were
591: flux-calibrated using the standard conversion factor of 1050 mJy
592: arcsec$^{-2}$ (flux unit)$^{-1}$, with about 12\% systematic
593: uncertainty (Stansberry \etal\ 2008). For our oversampled image
594: mosaics, this is equivalent to 269 mJy DN$^{-1}$ in a pixel.
595:
596: The MIPS 160 micron array suffers from a spectral leak that allows
597: near-IR radiation to produce a ghost image adjacent to the true 160
598: micron source image for stellar (roughly Rayleigh-Jeans) sources. The
599: leak is only bright enough to appear above the confusion noise for
600: sources with $J\sim<$ 5.5 (MIPS Data Handbook V3.2). Among our stars
601: observed at 160 \mum, three sources are brighter than this limit:
602: $\beta$ Pic, $\eta$ Tel, and AU Mic. In the first source, the
603: circumstellar 160 \mum\ emission is considerably brighter than the
604: leak, so no effort was made to subtract off the leak. In the latter
605: two sources, the leak was subtracted using observations of a
606: photospheric standard, Achernar, from the Spitzer Archive (AORKEY
607: 15572992) as a reference source. The subtraction procedure is to
608: empirically determine the maximum normalization factor for the leak
609: reference source, such that its subtraction from the science target
610: does not produce noticable residuals below the background level.
611:
612: To estimate upper limits to the 160 micron source flux
613: densities, we measured the rms background variation among four
614: 7$\times$7 pixel apertures offset 64 arcsec along the detector
615: rows/columns from the expected source position. For this
616: aperture size, the 1-$\sigma$ equivalent noise was calculated
617: as 1/7th of the individual pixel rms, assuming that the errors
618: combine in quadrature. This value was then converted to a
619: limiting flux density and corrected for the finite aperture size
620: using a multiplicative factor of 1.64 (measured from an STiny
621: Tim model PSF; Krist 2005). Background cirrus emission can
622: cause variation in the achieved sensitivity, with the
623: 3-$\sigma$ upper limits ranging over 27-77 mJy for our targets.
624:
625: The five detections (and seven 3-$\sigma$ upper limits) are listed in
626: Table~3. Most of our objects are seen at signal-to-noise ratios $>$8;
627: our statistical error on detections is much smaller in most cases than
628: the systematic error of 12\%, so is not reported. For $\eta$ Tel, the
629: detection has a signal-to-noise ratio of $\sim$4 (error of 16 mJy on
630: the 68 mJy reported in Table 3).
631:
632:
633: \subsection{Ancillary Data}
634:
635: We consulted the literature for ancillary data on these objects
636: including spectral types, \ubvri\jhk\ and ground-based MIR magnitudes,
637: distances, \vsini, membership, etc. References consulted for
638: literature values were the 2 Micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS;
639: Skrutskie \etal\ 2006), NASA Star and Exoplanet Database (NStED; Ali
640: \etal\ 2005), the IRAS faint source catalog (FSC; Moshir \etal\ 1992)
641: and bright source catalog (BSC; Beichman \etal\ 1988), as well as
642: Zuckerman \& Song (2004), Song \etal\ (2003), Feigelson \etal\ (2006),
643: Chen \etal\ (2005b), Su \etal\ (2006), Kaisler \etal\ (2004), Zuckerman
644: \etal\ (2001), Mamajek \etal\ (2004), Zuckerman \etal\ (2001),
645: Plavchan \etal\ (2005), Jayawardhana \etal\ (2006), and Schneider
646: \etal\ (2006).
647:
648: \subsection{SEDs and expected values}
649:
650: Spectral energy distributions (SEDs) from $U$ band through 160 \mum,
651: created from the literature data plus our MIPS fluxes, for all of
652: these targets are portrayed in
653: Figures~\ref{fig:seds1}-\ref{fig:seds4}. BPMG stars are in
654: Figures~\ref{fig:seds1}-\ref{fig:seds3}, and Tuc-Hor stars are in
655: Figure~\ref{fig:seds4}. Note that the error bars are usually smaller
656: than the points; the points are hollow symbols, and the central
657: vertical bar is the corresponding error.
658:
659: If available, spectral types as determined from spectra (not from
660: photometry) from the literature were used for each star. If no
661: spectrum-based type was available, the type determined from $V-K$
662: color as reported in Zuckerman \& Song (2004) was used; these types
663: appear in Table~1 as types without luminosity classes. Using
664: temperatures and gravities inferred from the spectral type, we
665: selected the closest grid point from the Kurucz-Lejeune model grid
666: (Lejeune \etal\ 1997, 1998). This stellar model is shown in
667: Figures~\ref{fig:seds1}-\ref{fig:seds4} and is used to determine the
668: expected photospheric flux densities for the sample of stars at MIPS
669: wavelengths. The models are normalized to the observed data at \ks.
670: Interpolating models rather than selecting the nearest grid point does
671: not make any significant difference in the expected photospheric flux
672: density. Using a single spectral type for unresolved binaries rather
673: than a hybrid of two spectral types also does not make any significant
674: difference in the expected photospheric flux density (see Trilling
675: \etal\ 2007).
676:
677: Because the spectral types are already well-known for most of these
678: stars, we did not wish to allow the spectral type to be a free
679: parameter in our fits. However, we did wish to assess the goodness of
680: the fit. Values of $\chi_{\nu}^2$ were calculated for the models in
681: Figures 1-4, and, as can be seen by eye in the Figures, all the fits
682: are quite good, even given occasional deviant optical points pulled
683: from the literature. For most of the objects, typical values of
684: $\chi_{\nu}^2$ are $\sim$0.46 (\eg, typically $<$10\% chance that the
685: model is a bad fit). For the remaining objects, typically one optical
686: point is off (e.g., GJ 3322 A/B, see Figure 1), which distorts the
687: $\chi_{\nu}^2$; dropping those points brings the $\chi_{\nu}^2$ into
688: line with the rest of the objects.
689:
690: The expected photospheric flux densities were linearly interpolated to
691: the MIPS wavelengths from the Kurucz-Lejeune model. These estimated
692: photospheric flux densities are included in Table~3. If the assumed
693: spectral type is off by a subclass, over the entire range of types
694: considered in this paper, there is typically a $\lesssim$4\% change in
695: the calculated photospheric flux, comparable to the systematic
696: uncertainty in the measured 24 \mum\ fluxes.
697:
698:
699:
700: \section{Results: Infrared Excesses in the BPMG}
701: \label{sec:findingdisks}
702:
703:
704: \subsection{Excesses at 24 \mum}
705: \label{sec:disks24}
706:
707: \clearpage
708: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
709: \epsscale{1.0}
710: \plotone{f5.eps}
711: \caption{Plot of \ks\ vs.\ \ks$-$[24] for all of the objects
712: considered here. Plus signs are objects from the BPMG; open circles
713: are objects from Tucanae-Horologium. The objects with excesses at 24
714: \mum, selected by a combination of techiniques, are indicated by name;
715: see text for discussion as to how the objects with excesses were
716: selected.}
717: \label{fig:kk24}
718: \end{figure*}
719:
720: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
721: \epsscale{1.0}
722: \plotone{f6.eps}
723: \caption{Plot of \ks$-$[24] vs.\ spectral type for all of the objects
724: considered here. Plus signs are objects from the BPMG; open circles
725: are objects from Tucanae-Horologium. The solid line indicates
726: expected photospheric color (Gautier \etal\ 2007). The objects with
727: excesses at 24 \mum, selected by a combination of techiniques, are
728: indicated by name; see text for discussion as to how the objects with
729: excesses were selected. }
730: \label{fig:kk24_spty}
731: \end{figure*}
732: \clearpage
733:
734: There are a variety of methods in the literature for finding
735: circumstellar disks based on the 24 \mum\ excess. We will consider a
736: few slightly different methods here and establish our final sample of
737: 7 objects (plus 1 more from Tuc-Hor) with excesses at 24 \mum.
738:
739: Figure~\ref{fig:kk24} is a color-magnitude diagram of \ks\ vs.\
740: \ks$-$[24]. In this figure, four stars stand out obviously as having
741: \ks$-$[24]$>$1.5: $\beta$ Pic, HR 7012, $\eta$ Tel, and HD 181327. We
742: could declare these four stars as our only stars with excesses.
743: However, more subtle excesses are certainly present in the remaining
744: stars; the points do not scatter evenly around \ks$-$[24]=0. Even
745: omitting the {\em five} stars with the largest \ks$-$[24], the mean
746: \ks$-$[24] color is 0.23, although there is a large standard
747: deviation; the 1$\sigma$ dispersion is 0.25.
748:
749: To identify which of the remaining stars have excesses, we consider
750: the photospheric color. For most spectral types, the
751: photospheric \ks$-$[24] color should be close to 0. Gautier \etal\ (2007)
752: find for M stars that there is a dependence of \ks$-$[24] color with
753: \teff\ such that the latest types have a \ks$-$[24] color up to 1.5
754: for the coolest stars considered there (\teff$\sim$2000).
755: Figure~\ref{fig:kk24_spty} shows the \ks$-$[24] color as a function of
756: spectral type for our sample here, along with the
757: photospheric line from Gautier \etal\ (2007). The non-zero color for
758: the latest types is readily apparent, and the tightness of the
759: correlation as a function of spectral type through the Ms clearly
760: follows the photospheres (see Gautier \etal\ 2007 for more
761: discussion). For types earlier than K0, we have another four stars
762: whose \ks$-$[24] colors are clearly distinct from 0: HD 164249 (F5),
763: HR 9 (F2), HIP 10679 (G2), and HD 10472 (F2). These objects too are
764: therefore likely to possess excesses at 24 \mum.
765:
766: We clearly need to take into account expected photospheric flux to
767: assess the significance of the \ks$-$[24] excess, and for that we need
768: to depend on a model estimate of the photospheric flux.
769: Bryden \etal\ (2006) consider nearby solar-type stars, calculating the
770: ratio of the measured to expected fluxes at 24 \mum. They determined
771: infrared excess objects to be those with F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm
772: pred}>$1.2. Taking F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}>$1.2 provides a
773: relatively conservative disk criterion at 24 \mum, in that it sets a
774: limit that is more than 3 times the systematic error of 4\%, also
775: providing ample room for the comparable $\sim$4\% uncertainty in the
776: calculation of F$_{\rm pred}$. In our sample, we can construct a
777: (sparse) histogram of F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$, and, as expected,
778: the histogram is sharply peaked around 1 with a break at 1.2 and a
779: long tail\footnote{To see the distribution of F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm
780: pred}$ in one dimension, see Figure~\ref{fig:ff24}.} extending out to
781: $\sim$27. The 1-$\sigma$ scatter in the points centered on F$_{\rm
782: meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}\sim$1 is 0.09. The similar analysis in Bryden
783: \etal\ (2006) finds a 1-$\sigma$ scatter of 0.06. The number we
784: obtain, 0.09, is an upper limit to the true error because we have
785: fewer stars than Bryden \etal\ and are using different methodology
786: (normalizing the star to \ks\ rather than fitting to the entire SED);
787: a few stars in our sample could inflate the error as a result of
788: small excesses or incorrect \ks\ magnitudes. On this basis, we believe
789: our results to be fundamentally consistent with those from Bryden
790: \etal\ (2006).
791:
792: The eight objects identified above have F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm
793: pred}>$1.2. Note that $\beta$ Pic itself has a ratio of $\sim$27 (the
794: largest of the sample). As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:kk24_spty}, HD
795: 10472 has the smallest ratio, 1.6. Assuming our scatter above of 0.09
796: as the worst-case-scenario, this lowest excess of our entire data set
797: is a 6-$\sigma$ excess.
798:
799: There are two M stars in Figure~\ref{fig:kk24_spty} that could have
800: slight excesses, as their \ks$-$[24] are redder than other objects of
801: similar spectral type; they are AG Tri A and B. AG Tri A has a ratio
802: that is exactly 1.2. AG Tri A will emerge in the next section as
803: having a 70 \mum\ excess, so it is quite possible that it has a small
804: 24 \mum\ excess. AG Tri B has only a slightly larger \ks$-$[24]
805: than other stars plotted of similar spectral type, and has F$_{\rm
806: meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$ at 24 microns of 0.98, well below our adopted
807: excess criterion.
808:
809: AU Mic is known to have a resolved disk at other wavelengths (e.g.,
810: Graham \etal\ 2007), so we investigated the evidence for an infrared
811: excess more closely. The spectral type of this star is usually taken
812: to be M1 (e.g., Graham \etal\ 2007, Houk 1982); it has
813: \ks$-$[24]=0.29, which is comparable to the photospheric emission from
814: other stars of that spectral type from Gautier \etal\ (2007). AU Mic
815: has F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$ at 24 \mum\ of 0.9, if anything
816: suggestive of a flux deficit at 24 microns. If the spectral type of
817: AU Mic were incorrect, and its true spectral type was earlier, our
818: analysis method would yield a smaller value of F$_{\rm pred}$ and
819: hence a larger value of F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$. In order to
820: yield F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}>$ 1.2, however, the true spectral
821: type would have to be early K. We have obtained our own high S/N,
822: echelle spectrum of AU Mic in order to constrain better its spectral
823: type (Stauffer \etal\ in preparation). Based on the strength of the
824: TiO bandheads near 7050 \AA, we estimate a spectral type at least as
825: late as M1, and exclude a spectral type earlier than M0. Therefore,
826: we believe our determination that AU Mic does not have an excess at 24
827: \mum\ is robust. In support of this, we note that the IRAS 25 \mum\
828: flux is comparable to our 24 \mum\ flux, and that Chen \etal\ (2005)
829: also conclude that the star has no 24 \mum\ excess.
830:
831: Formally adopting the Bryden \etal\ (2006) criterion, then, we find
832: that 8 out of the 39 stars or star systems in our entire sample have
833: 24 \mum\ excesses. Out of the 30 stars in the BPMG for which we have
834: measurements, 7 have F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}>$1.2. Assuming that
835: the excesses are due to circumstellar disks, this implies a disk
836: fraction at 24 \mum\ of 23\%.
837:
838:
839:
840:
841:
842: \subsection{Excesses at 70 \mum}
843: \label{sec:disks70}
844:
845: \clearpage
846: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
847: \epsscale{1.0}
848: \plotone{f7.eps}
849: \caption{Plot of \ks\ vs.\ \ks$-$[70] for all of the objects
850: considered here. Plus signs are detected objects from the BPMG; open
851: circles are detected objects from Tucanae-Horologium. All other
852: objects (from both associations) are indicated as upper limits at 70
853: \mum. All detections except $\epsilon$ Hya suggest excesses at 70
854: \mum.}
855: \label{fig:kk70}
856: \end{figure*}
857: \clearpage
858:
859: Figure~\ref{fig:kk70} shows a plot similar to Figure~\ref{fig:kk24}
860: but for \ks$-$[70] colors. Here, expected photospheric colors
861: are \ks$-$[70]$\sim$0. Bryden \etal\ (2006) set a value of F$_{\rm
862: meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}\gtrsim$2 (the precise level is dependent on the
863: background level) to divide the disks from the non-disked stars. The
864: overall scatter found for the Bryden \etal\ F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm
865: pred}$ for stars without excesses was 25\%, so the limit of F$_{\rm
866: meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}\gtrsim$2 corresponds to 4$\sigma$.
867:
868: In our data, just 14 stars are detected at 70 \mum\ (compared with 39
869: stars detected at 24 \mum). We have many fewer detections than Bryden
870: \etal\ (2006), and even upon initial inspection of the SEDs or
871: Figure~\ref{fig:kk70}, just one object ($\epsilon$~Hya) seems to be a
872: likely photospheric detection. In the 24 \mum\ section above, we were
873: able to examine the scatter of our measurements of F$_{\rm
874: meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$ for photospheres in our sample; there is no way
875: for us to repeat this analysis here at 70 \mum\ as a check on the
876: F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}\gtrsim$2 excess cutoff. However, all of
877: the detections at 70 \mum\ are clear excesses, with the exception of
878: $\epsilon$~Hya. Eps Hya has F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}<$0.8, and
879: all the rest of the detections are F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}>$4.9,
880: well beyond the Bryden \etal\ limit (20$\sigma$, assuming the 0.25
881: scatter), so we believe that the exact value for the criterion to
882: separate stars with excesses from those without is not critical. AG
883: Tri A, which was determined above to have an insignificant 24 \mum\
884: excess, has F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$=44 at 70 \mum.
885:
886: Fourteen of our larger sample of 38 stars or star systems are detected
887: at 70 \mum. The sensitivity of the 70 \mum\ observations in this
888: sample varies considerably because of the range of exposure times used
889: in these observations and the cirrus background. Out of the 30
890: members of the BPMG, 11 are detected, all of which have considerably
891: more than photospheric emission. This represents a lower limit on the
892: BPMG excess fraction (at 70 \mum) of 37\%.
893:
894:
895:
896: \subsection{Excesses at 160 \mum}
897: \label{sec:disks160}
898:
899: None of the observations at 160 \mum\ are sensitive enough to detect
900: the expected photospheric flux densities, so all of the 160 \mum\
901: detections are suggestive of excesses. Of the 12 BPMG stars with 160
902: \mum\ data, 5 are detected ($\beta$ Pic, HD 164249, $\eta$ Tel, HD
903: 181327, and AU Mic). Because the sample of stars selected for
904: observation at 160 \mum\ is biased towards those with disks, we cannot
905: infer a limit on the excess fraction (at 160 \mum).
906:
907: All stars detected at 160 \mum\ are also detected at 70 and 24 \mum,
908: and almost all of the stars with 160 \mum\ excesses also have excesses
909: at the other two MIPS wavelengths. The sole exception is AU Mic,
910: which has a clear excess at 70 but not at 24 \mum. Based on the
911: blackbody fits (see below), in no case does the 160 \mum\ detection
912: suggest a cold component of dust that is not seen at the shorter MIPS
913: wavelength(s). (For a discussion of how much cold dust could be
914: included within the uncertainty of the 160 \mum\ detections that is
915: not already accounted for with the component seen at 24 and 70 \mum,
916: please see Gautier \etal\ 2007.)
917:
918:
919:
920: \subsection{Comparison with IRAS}
921:
922: Of our 39 targets observed at 24 \mum\ from both the BPMG and Tuc-Hor,
923: 19 appear in the IRAS FSC or BSC with either detections or upper
924: limits (plus 3 more included with a nearby association member by the
925: IRAS beam). Discussion of individual objects is in
926: Appendix~\ref{sec:indobj}, including those objects where MIPS
927: observations have resolved source confusion (or background
928: contamination) found in the large-beam IRAS measurements.
929:
930: In summary, the MIPS observations confirm five excesses discovered by
931: IRAS. In five more cases (four of which have excesses at 70 \mum),
932: MIPS provides a detection near the IRAS limit. For the remaining 9
933: systems, MIPS establishes a new much more stringent upper limit on any
934: excess that may be present; at least 3 of those previously appeared to
935: have an excess based solely on IRAS results. There are three new
936: excesses without any prior IRAS detections or limits. For individual
937: source assessment, the SEDs for each object (including IRAS detections
938: and limits) appear in Figures~\ref{fig:seds1}-\ref{fig:seds4}, and
939: discussion of specific cases appears in the Appendix.
940:
941:
942:
943: \section{Disk Properties}
944: \label{sec:models}
945:
946:
947: We note here for completeness the following items. Simply having
948: $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*} < 1$ does not assure that the disk is really a
949: debris disk, which by definition requires a second generation of dust
950: and gas depletion; however, values of $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*} \sim
951: 10^{-3}$ are likely debris disks.
952: Spitzer/MIPS observations constrain the presence of dust in these
953: systems, but say nothing about any gas or grains much larger than the
954: wavelength of observation. From this point forward, we have assumed
955: that any excess infrared emission that we observe above the
956: photosphere is due entirely to a dusty circumstellar disk. Until
957: observations at any wavelength resolve the disk, this remains an
958: assumption.
959:
960: \clearpage
961: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrr}
962: \tablecaption{Model Results: Disk Properties}
963: \label{tab:results2}
964: %\rotate
965: \tablewidth{0pt}
966: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
967: \tablecolumns{8}
968: \tablehead{
969: & \multicolumn{4}{c}{simple blackbody models} &
970: \multicolumn{3}{c}{more complex models} \\
971: \colhead{object} & \colhead{BB T}
972: & \colhead{$L_{\rm dust}/L_{\rm *}$ } &
973: \colhead{min. $R_{\rm dust}$ } &
974: \colhead{min. $M_{\rm dust}$ } &
975: \colhead{$M_d$} & \colhead{$R_i$} & \colhead{$R_o$} \\
976: & \colhead{(K)}
977: & \colhead{ ($\times10^{-5}$)} &
978: \colhead{(AU)} &
979: \colhead{($M_{\rm{moon}}$)} &
980: \colhead{($M_{\rm{moon}}$)} & \colhead{(AU)} & \colhead{(AU)}}
981: \startdata
982: \cutinhead{Disks detected at more than one wavelength}
983: HR 9& 120 & 10 & 10 & 0.0004 & 0.25 & 35 & 200\\
984: HIP 10679& 100 & 80 & 20 & 0.01 & 0.4 & 35 & 200 \\
985: AG Tri A\tablenotemark{a}& 65 & 79 & 10 & 0.003 & \ldots\tablenotemark{d} & \ldots & \ldots\\
986: $\beta$ Pic\tablenotemark{b}& 130 & 180 & 10 & 0.012& \ldots & \ldots & \ldots\\
987: HD 164249& 78 & 59 & 20 & 0.01 & \ldots\tablenotemark{d} & \ldots & \ldots\\
988: HR 7012& 310 & 90 & 2 & 0.0002 & 0.05 & 5 & 200\\
989: $\eta$ Tel A/B& 140 & 24 & 20 & 0.0027 & 0.8 & 70 & 200\\
990: HD 181327& 75 & 250 & 20 & 0.06 & 10 & 68\tablenotemark{c} & 104\tablenotemark{c}\\
991: AU Mic& 50 & 23 & 8 & 0.0005 & 1 & 35 & 200\\
992: HD 10472 (Tuc-Hor) & 70 & 67 & 30 & 0.02 & 30 & 400 & 700\\
993: \cutinhead{Disks detected only at 70 \mum\ }
994: HR 1817& (41) & $>$3.0 & (60) & (0.004) & 0.3 & 100 & 200\\
995: PZ Tel& (41) & $>$7.3 & (50) & (0.006) & 0.3 & 35 & 200\\
996: HR 7848 (Tuc-Hor) & (41) & $>$13 & (100) & (0.07) & 5 & 250 & 400 \\
997: \enddata
998: \tablenotetext{a}{Since the F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$ at 24 \mum\
999: for this star was right at 1.2, we attempted modelling of this star
1000: including the observed flux density at 24 \mum.}
1001: \tablenotetext{b}{A simple disk fit was made for Beta Pic for
1002: self-consistency with the rest of the sample; this object is resolved
1003: at MIPS wavelengths and the disk is better characterized using other
1004: methods.}
1005: \tablenotetext{b}{Inner and outer radii are fixed at the values
1006: reported by Schneider \etal\ (2006).}
1007: \tablenotetext{c}{No fit possible; see text for discussion. }
1008: \end{deluxetable}
1009: \clearpage
1010:
1011: \subsection{Blackbody fits}
1012:
1013: For those 13 objects that we find to have excesses at any MIPS
1014: wavelength, Figures~\ref{fig:seds1} through \ref{fig:seds4} show a fit
1015: to the star+disk SED. The excesses are modelled as simple blackbodies,
1016: which we use for an initial simple characterization of the disks, akin
1017: to an assumption of a single-temperature thin ring of dust.
1018:
1019: In three cases (HR 1817, PZ Tel, HR 7848), we have a single data point
1020: at 70 \mum\ that describes the disk excess. For these objects, we
1021: follow the example set by Bryden \etal\ (2006) and simply set the peak
1022: of the blackbody to be at 70 \mum\ (41 K for $\lambda F_{\lambda}$).
1023: In ten cases, we have more data (detections and limits) that describe
1024: the disk; for these stars, we have found the best-fit blackbody by
1025: $\chi^2$ minimization analysis, allowing the best-fit blackbody to run
1026: through the upper limits where available. The temperatures
1027: corresponding to those fits can be found in Table~4. Note that in
1028: the case of AG Tri A, the F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$ at 24 \mum\ is
1029: 1.2, so a small excess at 24 \mum\ cannot be ruled out; we modelled
1030: this star including this potentially small excess at 24 \mum, so it is
1031: effectively treated as a star with more than one disk detection.
1032:
1033: Since a blackbody has two free parameters, disks with two data points
1034: describing the disk are fit perfectly by a blackbody, and this can
1035: clearly be seen in Figures~\ref{fig:seds1} -- \ref{fig:seds4}. We do
1036: not expect a simple blackbody to be a good fit to disks with three
1037: data points, because in reality there is wavelength-dependent grain
1038: emissivity for small grains that is not accounted for in a simple
1039: blackbody, and there is likely to be dust with a range of
1040: temperatures. Clearly better models than a simple blackbody are
1041: needed to characterize the disks (see below). Nonetheless, as can be
1042: seen in Figures~\ref{fig:seds1} -- \ref{fig:seds4}, the fits are
1043: acceptable for even the four objects ($\beta$ Pic, HD 164249, $\eta$
1044: Tel, and HD 181327) with excesses at all three MIPS bands, although,
1045: not surprisingly, many are not within 1$\sigma$ of the data points.
1046: The fit for HD 164249 is the most discrepant, running below the 70
1047: \mum\ point (333 mJy predicted by the model, compared to 624 mJy
1048: observed) but above the 160 \mum\ point (170 mJy predicted vs.\ 104
1049: mJy observed). In this case in particular, the dust distribution may
1050: well be impossible to characterize with a single temperature simple
1051: blackbody, even with grain emissivity included -- for example, there
1052: may be a range of particle sizes and a large distribution of orbital
1053: radii. Indeed, spectral features have been resolved from disks around
1054: $\beta$ Pic, HR 7012, and $\eta$ Tel (Chen \etal\ 2006, 2007).
1055: Nevertheless, for completeness and self-consistency within the sample,
1056: we list the numbers obtained via the simple blackbody fit in
1057: Table~4.
1058:
1059: The hottest dust found in the sample is $\sim$300 K for HR
1060: 7012. AU Mic's disk, which is resolved by other instruments
1061: (e.g., Kalas \etal\ 2004, Krist \etal\ 2005) though not by MIPS
1062: (Chen \etal\ 2005), is fit by the coldest dust of any of these
1063: objects (especially among those with 160 \mum\ detections) at
1064: $\sim$50~K, which is consistent with a disk excess at 70 and 160
1065: but not 24 \mum.
1066:
1067: Although we also fit $\beta$ Pic, AU Mic, and HD 181327 with single
1068: blackbodies for self-consistency within the sample and for comparison
1069: here, we note that these objects are resolved at other wavelengths --
1070: $\beta$ Pic is resolved even at MIPS wavelengths (Su \etal\ 2004) and
1071: is known to not be a single-temperature narrow ring -- so their disks
1072: are better characterized using other methods that take into account
1073: that spatial information.
1074:
1075:
1076: \subsection{Fractional IR excess}
1077:
1078: Since we have a wide range of spectral types represented in this
1079: association, we would like to use a measurement of the disk
1080: luminosity that attempts to compensate for the central star's
1081: luminosity. We used the fits described above to derive a value
1082: for the fractional disk luminosity, $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}$; these
1083: values appear in Table~4. To determine $L_{\rm dust}$ for stars
1084: which have an excess described by more than one detection, we
1085: integrate under the disk model fit, having subtracted off the
1086: photospheric contribution. In order to determine the $L_{\rm
1087: dust}/L_{*}$ value for stars whose excesses are only observed at
1088: 70 \mum, we follow Bryden \etal\ (2006; equation 3), determining
1089: the minimum $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}$ by assuming that the blackbody
1090: continuum peaks at 70 \mum.
1091:
1092: The $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}$ values that appear in Table~4 for disks
1093: detected in more than one wavelength range from $10^{-4}$ to
1094: 2.5$\times 10^{-3}$, with a median value of $7.9\times 10^{-4}$.
1095:
1096:
1097: \subsection{Minimum Radius and Minimum Mass}
1098: \label{sec:lowmodels}
1099:
1100: Assuming that the grains composing the disks are in thermal
1101: equilibrium, we can follow a similar analysis as found in Low
1102: \etal\ (2005) or Smith \etal\ (2006) to determine a minimum
1103: radius and minimum mass of the disk. We assume blackbody dust
1104: grains in thermal equilibrium with the stellar radiation field,
1105: and contrain the inner radius of the disk along
1106: with a minimum mass of the disk. Following Low \etal\ (2005),
1107: we use the relationship from Chen \& Jura (2001). We assume the
1108: same values for average grain size (2.8 \mum) and density (2.5 g
1109: cm$^{-3}$) adopted there (and in Low \etal\ 2005 and Smith
1110: \etal\ 2006), despite the fact that these parameters, having
1111: been derived for $\zeta$ Lep (an A3 star), may be more
1112: appropriate for much more massive stars than we have here on
1113: average (see additional discussion below). Values of minimum
1114: radius and minimum mass so calculated appear in Table~4. For
1115: disks detected in more than one wavelength, the minimum radius
1116: ranges from 2 to 30 AU, and the minimum mass ranges from
1117: $\sim$0.0002 to $\sim$0.06 $M_{\rm{moon}}$.
1118:
1119:
1120:
1121: \subsection{Literature Models}
1122:
1123: Spitzer Infrared Spectrograph (IRS; Houck \etal\ 2004) observations of
1124: HD 181327, HR 7012, and $\eta$ Tel were discussed and modelled in Chen
1125: \etal\ (2006). The IRS observations extend to 33 \mum. The MIPS-24
1126: \mum\ flux densities are consistent with the IRS spectra; since the
1127: Chen \etal\ (2006) models were designed to fit IRS spectra between 4
1128: and 33 \mum, of course the models are also, by construction,
1129: consistent with our MIPS-24 \mum\ flux densities. In all three cases,
1130: these models can be extended past 33 \mum\ to predict flux densities
1131: at 70 and 160 \mum, and they are found to be in very good agreement
1132: with the observed flux densities.
1133:
1134: For HD 181327, the IRS spectrum is featureless and Chen \etal\ model
1135: the excess as a simple blackbody, making it straightforward to compare
1136: their model parameters to ours. The blackbody temperature from Chen
1137: \etal\ is 81K; our blackbody temperature is 75K, which we consider to
1138: be identical to within the errors. The $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}$ reported
1139: by Chen \etal\ is 3.1$\times10^{-3}$, to be compared with
1140: 2.5$\times10^{-3}$ derived here. The minimum mass of the disk is
1141: 4$\times10^{24}$ grams in this paper and 1$\times10^{24}$ grams in
1142: Chen \etal. The Chen \etal\ model predicts a 70 \mum\ flux density of
1143: 1.2 Jy (20\% different than observations) and a 160 \mum\ flux density
1144: of 0.62 Jy (3\% different than observations).
1145:
1146: For the other two stars (HR 7012 and $\eta$ Tel), Chen \etal\ found
1147: features in the IRS spectra and constructed much more detailed,
1148: multi-component models (with various mineral species and a range of
1149: grain sizes, etc.), making comparison to parameters derived from our
1150: single-component blackbody fits relatively unilluminating. However,
1151: in order to match the overall structure of the IRS spectra found near
1152: $\sim$30 \mum, Chen \etal\ required a cooler component, up to two
1153: blackbodies of different temperatures and total solid angles. The
1154: assumptions of the models are sufficiently different from ours as to
1155: make simple comparisons difficult. These differences simply
1156: illustrate the latitude even relatively detailed models have in
1157: fitting the existing data, given the large number of parameters that
1158: can be adjusted. The one somewhat meaningful comparison is of the
1159: blackbody temperatures to fit the longest wavelength flux densities.
1160: For HR 7012, Chen \etal\ adopted a blackbody temperature of 200 K,
1161: versus 310 K for our models; for $\eta$ Tel, Chen \etal\ adopted two
1162: blackbodies, one of 115 K and the other of 370 K (however, the total
1163: solid angle of the 115 K component was much larger), versus our 140 K
1164: single blackbody. For HR 7012, the predicted flux densities are 0.27
1165: and 0.072 Jy at 70 and 160 \mum, respectively; at 70 \mum, the
1166: observed flux density is 35\% different from the model, and it was not
1167: observed at 160 \mum. For $\eta$ Tel, the Chen \etal\ predicted flux
1168: densities are 0.39 and 0.14 Jy, and our observed values are just 5 and
1169: 8\% different from the model.
1170:
1171: % In both cases (HD 181327 and $\eta$ Tel) where there are 160 \mum\
1172: % observations, the match between model and observed flux density is
1173: % well within the 12\% systematic uncertainty. In two of the three
1174: % cases (HD 181327 and HR 7012), the model is more discrepant from the
1175: % 70 \mum\ point than then 10\% systematic uncertainty expected.
1176: % Nonetheless, since these model predictions were based on data from
1177: % $\lesssim$30 \mum, the fact that they match as well as they do lends
1178: % credence to the the disk properties derived in Chen \etal\ (2006),
1179: % specifically the presence of a cooler, single-temperature component
1180: % found in HR 7012 and $\eta$ Tel.
1181:
1182:
1183:
1184: \subsection{New Models}
1185:
1186: \clearpage
1187: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
1188: \epsscale{0.8}
1189: \plotone{f8.eps}
1190: \caption{Star+disk models of the ten stars considered for more
1191: sophisticated modeling; see text for discussion as to how they were
1192: selected and the details of the modelling. Notation is as in
1193: Figures~\ref{fig:seds1}-\ref{fig:seds4}: the
1194: $x$-axis plots log of the wavelength in microns, and the $y$ axis
1195: plots log($\lambda F_{\lambda}$) in cgs units (ergs s$^{-1}$
1196: cm$^{-2}$). Points gleaned from the literature are diamonds, boxes
1197: are detections or upper limits from IRAS, and circles are new MIPS
1198: points. Downward-pointing arrows indicate upper limits.}
1199: \label{fig:vgm1}
1200: \end{figure*}
1201:
1202: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
1203: \epsscale{0.8}
1204: \plotone{f9.eps}
1205: \caption{Star+disk models of the three stars with IRS spectra
1206: considered for unconstrained modeling; see text for details of the
1207: modelling. Notation is as in Figures~\ref{fig:seds1}-\ref{fig:seds4};
1208: the $x$-axis plots log of the wavelength in microns, and the $y$ axis
1209: plots log($\lambda F_{\lambda}$) in cgs units (ergs s$^{-1}$
1210: cm$^{-2}$). Points gleaned from the literature are diamonds, boxes
1211: are detections or upper limits from IRAS, circles are new MIPS points,
1212: and the solid line is the IRS spectra from Chen \etal\ (2006).
1213: Downward-pointing arrows indicate upper limits.}
1214: \label{fig:vgm2}
1215: \end{figure*}
1216: \clearpage
1217:
1218: Thirteen of the 40 targets have flux excesses above photospheric
1219: levels in at least one of the MIPS bands. Of these, $\beta$ Pic
1220: itself, has been studied extensively in the literature (most recently
1221: Chen \etal\ 2007), and we consider it no further here. We have fit the
1222: data points as portrayed in Figures 1-4 for the remaining twelve
1223: systems using continuum spectra computed in each case for an
1224: axisymmetric and optically thin disk of astronomical silicate grains
1225: in radiative equilbrium with the stellar field. The models are
1226: described further in Mannings \etal\ (in prep); below, we summarize
1227: the characteristics of the models.
1228:
1229: \subsubsection{Model Description}
1230:
1231: We assume grain radii distributed as a power law from 0.001 microns to
1232: 1 mm. The index of the {\it continuous} power law distribution in
1233: grain size is here fixed at $-$2.5, leading directly from the index of
1234: $-$3.5 for the number of grains {\it per unit size interval}
1235: described in the clasic study of interstellar grains by Mathis, Rumpl
1236: \& Norsieck (1977). Optical constants are taken from Draine (2007)
1237: for the smaller grains. We compute absorption efficiencies for the
1238: larger grains by modifying the Mie code developed by Bohren and
1239: Huffman (1983). We then distribute the grains across a disk geometry
1240: assuming a surface density viewed normal to the disk plane that falls
1241: off as a power law from an inner disk radius $R_i$ to an outer radius,
1242: $R_o$. (See Sylvester \& Skinner 1996 for similar modelling of
1243: debris disks.) The power law index for the radial density distribution
1244: is held at the typical value of $-1.5$ assumed for circumstellar disks
1245: (\eg, Kenyon \& Bromley 2002). The disk inclination angle is
1246: irrelevant for optically thin emission, as is the (likely) non-zero
1247: opening angle of the disk as viewed from the star. The remaining disk
1248: parameter is simply the total mass of grains, $M_d$. To limit the
1249: number of free parameters (since in several cases we have but one
1250: point defining the disk), we fix all quantities with the exception of
1251: $R_i$, $R_o$, and $M_d$. These three parameters dominate in different
1252: wavelength regimes, so we are able to hone in on a unique fit despite
1253: the sparseness of the data. To first order, the value of $R_i$
1254: establishes, for a fixed range of grain sizes, as in this model, the
1255: wavelength at which the disk spectrum exhibits a peak, while $M_d$
1256: determines the luminosity of the disk. The spectrum is relatively
1257: insensitive to $R_o$. Increasing the value of $R_o$ relative to $R_i$
1258: is akin to spreading the grains out to greater distances from the star
1259: but, since the radial density falls as a power law, the effect on the
1260: total spectrum is marginal. It can be perceived as a gentle softening
1261: of the ratio of the total flux emitted by warm grains (inner disk) and
1262: cool grains (outer disk). We show our model SEDs in
1263: Figure~\ref{fig:vgm1}. %, and the corresponding flux density estimates (and
1264: %deviations from the observed flux densities) in Table 5.
1265:
1266: % \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
1267: % \tablecaption{Model Predictions}
1268: % \label{tab:results3}
1269: % \tablewidth{0pt}
1270: % \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1271: % \tablecolumns{7}
1272: % \tablehead{
1273: % \colhead{object} & \colhead{24 \mum\ model flux }
1274: % & \colhead{fractional difference\tablenotemark{a} } &
1275: % \colhead{70 \mum\ model flux } &
1276: % \colhead{fractional difference\tablenotemark{a} } &
1277: % \colhead{160 \mum\ model flux} & \colhead{fractional difference\tablenotemark{a}} \\
1278: % & \colhead{density (mJy)}
1279: % & \colhead{ from observations} &
1280: % \colhead{density (mJy)} &
1281: % \colhead{from observations} &
1282: % \colhead{density (mJy)} & \colhead{from observations} }
1283: % \startdata
1284: % HR 9& 0.114& -0.04& 0.081& -0.33& 0.034& -0.25 (limit)\\
1285: % HD 10472& 0.020& 0.24& 0.117& 0.08& 0.084& (no data)\\
1286: % HIP 10679& 0.037& 0.03& 0.040& 0.07& 0.024& (no data)\\
1287: % HR 1817& 0.090& -0.14& 0.044& 0.02& 0.023& 0.70 (limit)\\
1288: % HR 7012& 0.706& 0.08& 0.189& 0.04& 0.040& (no data)\\
1289: % PZ Tel& 0.028& -0.33& 0.019& -0.11& 0.011& (no data)\\
1290: % Eta Tel A/B& 0.429& -0.12& 0.331& 0.19& 0.115& -0.69\\
1291: % HD 181327& 0.694& -2.56& 1.473& -0.003& 0.685& -0.04\\
1292: % HR 7848& 0.268& -0.44& 0.607& 0.004& 0.355& (no data)\\
1293: % AU Mic& 0.234& -0.62& 0.172& 0.16& 0.146& 0.13 \\
1294: % \enddata
1295: % \tablenotetext{a}{The fractional difference is calculated via
1296: % (observation $-$ model)/ observation, so values $<$ 0 mean that the
1297: % model is brighter than the observations.}
1298: % \end{deluxetable}
1299: % %\clearpage
1300:
1301:
1302: \subsubsection{Model Results and Comparison}
1303:
1304: The best fit values are listed in Table 4 for $M_d$, $R_i$ and $R_o$,
1305: as derived using these models and the optical+near IR+MIPS data that
1306: appear in Figures 1-4. Disk masses range from about 0.05 to 30 Lunar
1307: masses. Disk inner radii take values from 5 to 400 AU, and outer radii
1308: range from about 100 to 700 AU. The median fractional difference
1309: between the model and the observations at 24 \mum\ is $-$0.12,
1310: including the value from HD 181327, which is the most discrepant at 24
1311: \mum\ (see Figure~\ref{fig:vgm1}, and discussion below). The closest
1312: fit is HIP 10679, where the model matches the observations to 3\%.
1313: Given that the systematic uncertainty of our 24 \mum\ observations is
1314: 4\%, the model is then typically $\sim3\times$ off at 24 \mum. At
1315: both 70 and 160 \mum, the median fractional difference between the
1316: model and observations is just 0.04, well within the systematic
1317: uncertainty at either band.
1318:
1319: The simpler models calculated following Low \etal\ (2005) in
1320: Section~\ref{sec:lowmodels} above (hereafter abbreviated as
1321: ``Model 1''), not surprisingly, produce much different values of
1322: disk masses and radii than those calculated here. The models
1323: from Mannings \etal\ (hereafter abbreviated ``Model 2") are more
1324: complex; both Models 1 and 2 are physically valid within the
1325: limitations of their own set of assumptions, which we now
1326: discuss.
1327:
1328: Model 1, in order to calculate the minimum disk mass and inner minimum
1329: disk radius, must make simple assumptions about the grain size (2.8
1330: \mum) and density (2.5 g cm$^{-3}$), and assume that the grains
1331: radiate as blackbodies. These assumptions trace back to Chen \& Jura
1332: (2001), who studied an A3 star, $\zeta$ Lep; they took 2.8 \mum\ for
1333: grain size because grains smaller than this would be ejected from the
1334: system due to radiation pressure. This is {\em not} a universally
1335: valid assumption for these BPMG stars (or for that matter for the TWA
1336: stars from Low \etal\ 2005), because there are much cooler M stars
1337: included in both BPMG and TWA. But, such calculations nonetheless
1338: serve to provide a rough comparison between star-disk systems across
1339: papers and associations.
1340:
1341: Model 2 obtains such different results for disk masses and sizes for a
1342: variety of reasons, all traced back to grain size and location
1343: assumptions. Model 2 assumes that each disk is a power-law mixture of
1344: grain sizes (from ISM size to 1 mm), and that the mixture is spread
1345: out across the disk (not in a thin ring). Most of the grains are a
1346: factor of 3000 smaller in radius than that assumed in Model 1, and the
1347: grain emission is not blackbody. Small non-blackbody grains tend to
1348: be hotter than larger (\eg, blackbody) grains at the same distance
1349: from a star, so the small grains must be further out to get lower
1350: temperatures and, therefore, similar fluxes. That in part accounts for
1351: the Model 2 disk inner radii being larger than those of Model 1.
1352: (Moreover, the radii from Model 1 are artificially reduced by the
1353: assumption that the particles radiate like blackbodies at the
1354: temperatures or wavelengths of interest, which is almost certainly not
1355: the case as even 3 \mum\ particles are small compared to the relevant
1356: wavelengths.) Because Model 2 has larger disk radii, a much larger
1357: amount of dust area is needed to subtend a given solid angle to absorb
1358: the stellar light and match the observations. The Model 2 disk
1359: masses are larger than those of Model 1 for two reasons. First,
1360: because the best-fit inner disk radii are larger than the Model 1
1361: values, a greater amount of integrated grain surface area is needed in
1362: Model 2 to subtend a similar total solid angle, as viewed from the
1363: star, to that for Model 1. Second, due to the power-law distribution
1364: in grain sizes, a significant amount of disk mass is locked up in the
1365: large end of the size range, while the absorption and re-emissison of
1366: starlight is dominated by grains at the small end. The small grains
1367: contribute negligibly to the disk mass, but they dominate the
1368: radiative transfer and, therefore, the output spectrum.
1369:
1370: % By way of comparison, we note the following. Amongst the stars for
1371: % which we have produced these more detailed models are HR 7012 and
1372: % $\eta$ Tel. As mentioned previously, Chen \etal\ (2006) also produced
1373: % detailed models of these stars based on IRS spectra. To explain the
1374: % spectral features near 10 and 20 microns in their spectra, they
1375: % included grains of a few microns in size with a variety of
1376: % mineralogical types. They allowed the total mass in these grains to
1377: % vary in order to fit the spectral features. The assumptions of the
1378: % models are sufficiently different from ours as to make simple
1379: % comparisons difficult. These differences simply illustrate the
1380: % latitude even relatively detailed models have in fitting the
1381: % existing data, given the large number of parameters that can be
1382: % adjusted. As another illustration of how otherwise equally good
1383: % models can yield very different inferred disk parameters, we note that
1384: % Beichman \etal\ (2006) created two different simple models with
1385: % single-sized grains -- one model with 0.25 \mum\ grains and the other
1386: % with 10 \mum\ grains -- from which they constructed equally good fits
1387: % to their data with vastly different inferred dust masses.
1388:
1389: \subsubsection{Notes on models of specific sources}
1390:
1391: For HD 181327, the inner and outer radii were fixed at the values
1392: reported by Schneider \etal\ (2006), despite the fact that those
1393: parameters were obtained from wavelengths shorter than 24 \mum. Only
1394: the mass was left as a free parameter in our model fit. This (plus
1395: the other constraints imposed) explains why the predicted model flux
1396: density at 24 \mum\ is so different than the observed flux density
1397: (see Figure~\ref{fig:vgm1}, and below).
1398:
1399: Two of the twelve sources with flux excesses cannot be fit with model
1400: disk spectra: AG Tri A and HD 164249. The MIPS detections for these
1401: latter targets could include background sources that cannot be
1402: distinguished from the target stars, but as we argue above, this is
1403: relatively unlikely, $<$1\%. It is more likely that some of the fixed
1404: parameters need to vary, and that measurements are needed at other
1405: wavelengths to constrain the models. Both of these objects are also
1406: not particularly well-fit by the simple blackbodies above. HD 164249
1407: was called out as a particularly poor fit above; with the more
1408: sophisticated modelling (given the constrained parameters above), the
1409: 24 \mum\ excess can be fit, but the 70 \mum\ model is well below the
1410: observed flux. AG Tri A's simple blackbody fit above runs through the
1411: upper limit at 160 \mum, and if the true flux of the system is really
1412: much lower, the simple fit will not work either.
1413:
1414: \subsubsection{Testing the simple models by including IRS data}
1415:
1416: Three stars have IRS spectra as noted above and as reported in Chen
1417: \etal\ (2006) -- $\eta$ Tel, HD 181327, and HR 7012. (Additional IRS
1418: spectra for several more BPMG stars exist in the Spitzer Archive, but
1419: analyzing those data is beyond the scope of this paper.) As a simple
1420: way of assessing the limitations of the simple models performed above
1421: that primarily rely on the MIPS data in the mid- and far-IR, for
1422: $\eta$ Tel, HD 181327, and HR 7012, we included the IRS data and then
1423: attemped an unconstrained Mannings \etal\ model fit, e.g., letting all
1424: of the parameters vary. Plots of these fits (including the IRS data
1425: from Chen \etal\ 2006) appear in Figure~\ref{fig:vgm2}.
1426:
1427: For $\eta$ Tel, the constrained model fit above slightly underpredicts
1428: the 70 \mum\ flux density (by 17\%) while slightly overpredicting the
1429: 160 \mum\ flux density (by 10\%). In order to fit the IRS data as
1430: well, the best model fit now brings the inner radius in from 70 to 30
1431: AU, and the disk mass from 0.8 to 0.3 $M_{\rm moon}$.
1432:
1433: For HD 181327, the constrained model fit above predicts a
1434: higher 24 \mum\ flux than is observed. In order to allow the
1435: model to fit the IRS+MIPS data together, but still leave the
1436: inner disk radius constrained to that reported by Schneider
1437: \etal\ (2006), we increased the minimum grain size from 0.001
1438: \mum\ to 1 \mum, so the grains are distributed as a power law
1439: from 1 \mum\ to 1 mm. The model matches the IRS spectrum very
1440: well, eliminating the discrepancy at 24 \mum, but slightly
1441: underpredicting (by 17\%) the 70 \mum\ flux while slightly
1442: overpredicting (by 10\%) the 160 \mum\ flux. The disk mass
1443: increases from the 9 $M_{\rm moon}$ reported above to 11 $M_{\rm
1444: moon}$.
1445:
1446: Finally, for HR 7012, the best-fit disk mass is identical to the fit
1447: as reported above (0.05 $M_{\rm moon}$) and the inner disk radius
1448: changes from 5 to 3.5 AU, not a significant change. The model
1449: replicates well the emission features observed near 10 and 20 \mum, so
1450: the grains in this disk could be silicate or have a large silicate
1451: component, as reported by Chen \etal\ (2006).
1452:
1453:
1454:
1455:
1456:
1457:
1458: \clearpage
1459: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
1460: \epsscale{0.8}
1461: \plotone{f10.eps}
1462: \caption{Evolution of disk fraction with time: the top panel is the 24
1463: \mum\ disk fraction, and the bottom panel is the 70 \mum\ disk
1464: fraction. Values from the literature (see Table~5) are compared with
1465: our values for the BPMG. Literature 24 \mum\ points are circles, BPMG
1466: 24 \mum\ point is a large solid 5-pointed star, literature 70 \mum\
1467: points are boxes, and the BPMG 70 \mum\ point is a large solid box.
1468: Grey vertical lines are the errors calculated from Poisson (counting)
1469: statistics. Our points are consistent with the disk fractions for
1470: similarly-aged clusters and associations found in the literature.}
1471: \label{fig:evol}
1472: \end{figure*}
1473:
1474: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
1475: \epsscale{1.0}
1476: \plotone{f11.eps}
1477: \caption{The ratio of measured to predicted 24 \mum\ flux as a
1478: function of time for objects in the literature, as described in the
1479: text; gray $\times$ symbols correspond to our objects from
1480: the BPMG and Tuc-Hor. The horizontal dotted line corresponds to the
1481: $F_{\rm meas}/F_{\rm pred}$=1.2 cutoff between disks and photospheres
1482: discussed in \S3.1.}
1483: \label{fig:ff24}
1484: \end{figure*}
1485:
1486: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
1487: \epsscale{1.0}
1488: \plotone{f12.eps}
1489: \caption{The ratio of measured to predicted 70 \mum\ flux as a
1490: function of time for objects in the literature, as described in the
1491: text; gray $\times$ symbols or upper limits correspond to our objects
1492: from the BPMG and Tuc-Hor. The horizontal dotted line corresponds to
1493: the $F_{\rm meas}/F_{\rm pred}$=2 cutoff between disks and
1494: photospheres discussed in \S3.2. }
1495: \label{fig:ff70}
1496: \end{figure*}
1497: \clearpage
1498:
1499: \begin{deluxetable}{lllll}
1500: \tablecaption{Infrared Excess Fractions}
1501: \label{tab:diskfrac}
1502: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1503: \tablewidth{0pt}
1504: \tablehead{
1505: \colhead{cluster/ass'n} & \colhead{age} &\colhead{24 \mum\ disk
1506: fraction} & \colhead{70 \mum\ disk fraction}
1507: &\colhead{reference}}
1508: \startdata
1509: Upper Sco F\&G & $\sim$5 Myr & 1/5, 20\% ($\pm$20\%)& 0/5, $>$0\% ($\pm$20\%)& Chen \etal\ (2005a) \\
1510: $\eta$ Cha & $\sim$8 Myr & 9/16, 56\% ($\pm$18\%) & 5/15, $>$33\% ($\pm$15\%)& Gautier \etal\ (2008) \\
1511: TW Hya & $\sim$8 Myr & 7/23, 30\%\tablenotemark{a} ($\pm$11\%) & 6/20, $>$30\% ($\pm$10\%)& Low \etal\ (2005) \\
1512: UCL \& LCC\tablenotemark{b}~~F\&G & $\sim$10 Myr & 12/35, 34\% ($\pm$10\%)& 7/35, $>$20\% ($\pm$7\%)& Chen \etal\ (2005a) \\
1513: %NGC 7160 & $\sim$12 Myr & $<$4\%\tablenotemark{a} & \nodata & Sicilia-Aguilar \etal\ (2006) \\
1514: BPMG & $\sim$12 Myr & 7/30, 23\% ($\pm$9\%) & 11/30, $>$37\% ($\pm$11\%)& {\it this work}\\
1515: Tuc-Hor & $\sim$30 Myr & 1/9, 11\% ($\pm$11\%) & 8/31, $>$26\% ($\pm$10\%)& Smith \etal\ (2006), \\
1516: & & & & {\it combined with this work} \\
1517: NGC 2547 & $\sim$25 Myr & $\sim$25\% & \ldots & Young \etal\ (2004) \\
1518: IC 2391 & $\sim$50 Myr & 6/26, 23\% ($\pm$9\%) & \ldots & Siegler \etal\ (2006) \\
1519: Pleiades & $\sim$100 Myr & 9/54, 17\% ($\pm$5\%)& none detected & Gorlova \etal\ (2006), \\
1520: & & & & Stauffer \etal\ (2005)\\
1521: M47 & $\sim$100 Myr & 8/63, 13\% ($\pm$5\%) & \ldots & Gorlova \etal\ (2004) \\
1522: Hyades & $\sim$650 Myr & 0/6, 0\% ($\pm$2\%) & \ldots & Rieke \etal\ (2005) \\
1523: field & $\sim$4000 Myr & 1/69, 1\% ($\pm$3\%)& 7/69, 10\% ($\pm$4\%) & Bryden \etal\ (2006) \\
1524: \enddata
1525: \tablenotetext{a}{TWA 24 \mum\ infrared excess fraction reassessed
1526: here; see text for discussion.}
1527: %\tablenotetext{b}{NGC 7160 disk fraction based not just on MIPS-24
1528: %data; disk fraction includes disk determinations based on shorter
1529: %avelength IRAC+MIPS-24 data together. This cluster is also much
1530: %further away than the other clusters/associations listed here, so
1531: %sensitivity and source confusion are an issue; see text for discussion.}
1532: \tablenotetext{b}{UCL=Upper Centaurus-Lupus; LCC=Lower Centaurus-Crux}
1533: \end{deluxetable}
1534: \clearpage
1535:
1536: \section{Discussion}
1537: \label{sec:disc}
1538:
1539: Based on the standard paradigm, the stars in the BPMG are expected to
1540: have a lower disk frequency and smaller infrared excesses than found
1541: in younger stars, and to possess a higher disk frequency and larger
1542: excesses than older stars. Our results follow those expectations at
1543: both 24 and 70 \mum; Figure~\ref{fig:evol} plots our 24 and 70 \mum\
1544: disk (excess) fractions in context with several other determinations
1545: from the literature, which can also be found in Table~5. After a
1546: brief discussion of some minor issues, we now discuss our study in
1547: context with other studies in the literature.
1548:
1549: Because these disks are likely to evolve such that the infrared
1550: excesses disappear from the ``inside-out'' (\eg, Su \etal\ 2006) it is
1551: important to consider the wavelength dependence of the disk fraction
1552: being considered. Since the sensitivity of the 70 \mum\ array does
1553: not allow for detections of the stellar photospheres for most stars,
1554: it is difficult to obtain an unambiguous definition of the disk
1555: fraction at this wavelength. Essentially all studies, therefore,
1556: quote a lower limit to the true 70 \mum\ disk fraction in clusters or
1557: associations. The error bars shown in Figure~\ref{fig:evol} and
1558: listed in Table~5 are derived from Poisson (counting) statistics.
1559: Note too that there are relatively large uncertainties on the ages of
1560: these clusters and associations. Finally, we note that several of our
1561: stars as considered here are unresolved binaries. We have made no
1562: attempt to distinguish binaries as a separate population from single
1563: stars here, nor to apportion the flux between the companions, but we
1564: have listed known binarity in Tables 1-3. Given the distance of the
1565: BPMG and the MIPS resolution, unresolved binaries must have a
1566: separation of $\lesssim$ 200 AU. The results of Trilling \etal\ (2007)
1567: suggest that the evolution of such circumbinary disks is roughly
1568: comparable to that of single stars, so including unresolved binaries
1569: as single stars should not significantly change
1570: Figure~\ref{fig:evol}.
1571:
1572: There are three associations in Table~5 thought to be younger than the
1573: BPMG: Upper Sco ($\sim$ 5 Myr), the TW Hydra Association (TWA;
1574: $\sim$8-10 Myr), and the $\eta$ Chamaeleon association ($\sim$5-9
1575: Myr). All three of these associations have larger 24 \mum\ disk
1576: fractions in the literature (Chen \etal\ 2005a, Low \etal\ 2005,
1577: Gautier \etal\ 2008, respectively) than we find for the BPMG,
1578: consistent with expectations. (Admittedly, the Upper Sco sample
1579: includes only about 5\% of the likely members of this association, so
1580: there is a large uncertainty on the disk fraction compared to what
1581: future investigators are likely to conclude.) Low \etal\ (2005) find
1582: for TWA that there are very large excesses around four of the TWA
1583: stars, with possibly a subtle 24 \mum\ excess around one more of the
1584: stars. We have re-reduced their MIPS data in exactly the same fashion
1585: as here in the BPMG, and find, as did Low \etal, that many of the
1586: measurements are consistent with photospheres. We were able to
1587: measure 24 \mum\ fluxes for 23 objects, some of which are components
1588: of wide binary systems. We confirm the 4 large excess objects (TWA 1,
1589: 3, 4, 11), as well as the small excess found in TWA 7, but also,
1590: using the same criteria as for the BPMG, that 8b and 19 are also
1591: likely to harbor circumstellar disks. Thus, to aid in direct
1592: comparison with our BPMG data, we have taken the TWA disk fraction at
1593: 24 \mum\ to be 7/23 stars, or 30\%. The largest excess objects in TWA
1594: have \ks$-$[24]$>$4 (5.8, 5.0, 4.4, and 4.4 for TWA 1, 3, 4, and 11,
1595: respectively, with F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$= 160, 69, 51, and
1596: 58). The reddest object we have is $\beta$ Pic itself, with
1597: \ks$-$[24] of only 3.5, well below the 4 extreme TWA stars. The three
1598: TWA stars with more moderate excesses, TWA 7, 8b and 19, have
1599: \ks$-$[24]= 0.70, 0.75 and 0.30, respectively. (The F$_{\rm
1600: meas}$/F$_{\rm pred}$ values we calculate are 1.4, 1.3, and 1.3,
1601: respectively.) In terms of the 70 \mum\ disk fraction, the numbers
1602: obtained for Upper Sco, TWA, $\eta$ Cha, and BPMG are all consistent,
1603: within 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties, with having a constant disk
1604: fraction. The one disk candidate from the Chen \etal\ (2005a) Upper
1605: Sco sample has $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}=4.4\times10^{-4}$. The values for
1606: $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}$ for TWA range from 0.27 to $\sim10^{-4}$ (Low
1607: \etal\ 2005), and in $\eta$ Cha, they range from 0.019 to
1608: $\sim10^{-6}$ (Gautier \etal\ 2008); both of these clusters have
1609: larger $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}$ values than those we find here in the BPMG
1610: (10-250$\times10^{-5}$).
1611:
1612: The estimated age of the Upper Centarus-Lupus (UCL) and Lower
1613: Centaurus-Crux (LCC) associations has been taken to be $\sim$15-20 Myr
1614: (\eg, Chen \etal\ 2005a), but is more recently set at $\sim$10 Myr
1615: (Song \etal\ submitted), which we adopt here. The ages of those
1616: clusters are roughly comparable to that of the BPMG. Both the 24
1617: and 70 \mum\ disk fractions found in F and G stars from UCL \& LCC are
1618: within 1-$\sigma$ of the disk fractions found in the BPMG, despite the
1619: fact that our BPMG disk fractions include more stars than just F\&G.
1620: The $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}$ values found in UCL \& LCC range from
1621: $\sim10^{-3}-10^{-5}$, comparable to the range we find in the BPMG.
1622:
1623: Tucanae-Horologium ($\sim$20-40 Myr) and NGC 2547 ($\sim$25 Myr) are
1624: thought to be slightly older than the BPMG. Membership in NGC~2547
1625: (Young \etal\ 2004) is not as well-established as it is for other
1626: objects in Table~5. The 24 \mum\ disk fraction is consistent with
1627: that for the BPMG, and the 70 \mum\ disk fraction is not reported.
1628: Working in a sample of nearby solar-type young stars (including
1629: several from but not limited to Tuc-Hor), Smith \etal\ (2006) find
1630: that just 19 of their overall 112-star sample (17\%) have 70 \mum\
1631: detections at all. Of the 22 stars in the Tuc-Hor association
1632: included in the Smith \etal\ sample, 8 are detected, and 6 are
1633: determined to be greater than photospheric, or a lower limit on the
1634: disk fraction of 27\%. We can combine these stars with the 9 Tuc-Hor
1635: stars from the present work, obtaining a 24 \mum\ disk fraction of 1/9
1636: (11\%), and a 70 \mum\ disk fraction of at least 8/31 ($>$26\%). Within
1637: small-number statistics, the Tuc-Hor disk fractions at both 24 and 70
1638: \mum\ are indistinguishable from those obtained here in the BPMG.
1639:
1640: There are 4 clusters, in addition to field stars, older than the BPMG
1641: in Table~5. The 24 \mum\ disk fraction reported by Siegler \etal\
1642: (2006) for IC 2391 ($\sim$50 Myr) is comparable to that for the BPMG.
1643: The disk fractions from the Pleiades and M47 ($\sim$100 Myr; Gorlova
1644: \etal\ 2006, 2004) are only marginally lower than that inferred for
1645: the BPMG. The BPMG disk fraction is significantly higher than that for
1646: the Hyades (Rieke \etal\ 2005) or field stars from the solar
1647: neighborhood (Bryden \etal\ 2006). The Bryden \etal\ (2006) study
1648: found just one 24 \mum\ excess out of 69 stars. Detections (of disks
1649: or photospheres) are harder at the distances of most of these older
1650: clusters; in the Pleiades, no disks are seen at 70 \mum, although the
1651: background is quite high (Stauffer \etal\ 2005). For the old
1652: ($\sim$4000 Myr) field stars in Bryden \etal\ (2006), 10\% of their
1653: $\sim$70 star sample has 70 \mum\ disks. The $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}$
1654: values reported by Bryden \etal\ (2006) range from
1655: $<10^{-6}-\sim10^{-5}$, lower than what we find in the BPMG (or even
1656: could have detected). Our results are consistent with the trend that
1657: the disk fraction and brightness falls with time.
1658:
1659: In considering these disk fractions, we have grouped together stars of
1660: a range of masses in order to increase the number of stars considered
1661: at each age; for example, the BPMG disk fraction includes stars from A
1662: to M. However, disk evolution is probably stellar-mass-dependent
1663: (e.g., Carpenter \etal\ 2006), and certainly measured colors are
1664: mass-dependent (as discussed above; see Figure~\ref{fig:kk24_spty}).
1665: Besides $L_{\rm dust}/L_{*}$, another way that we might attempt to
1666: compensate for the range of spectral types is to use the ratio of
1667: measured to predicted flux densities. Figure~\ref{fig:ff24} and
1668: \ref{fig:ff70} present the ratios of predicted to measured flux
1669: densities for 24 and 70 \mum\ for our stars and, where possible,
1670: values from the literature for individual stars (Bryden \etal\ 2006;
1671: Chen \etal\ 2005a,b; Gautier \etal\ 2008; Kim \etal\ 2005; Low
1672: \etal\ 2005; Siegler \etal\ 2007; Smith \etal\ 2006; Stauffer \etal\
1673: 2005). Where previous work has not reported a predicted flux density
1674: for each star, we have calculated the predicted flux densities by the
1675: same methodology as above for each star (finding the nearest grid
1676: point in the Kurucz-Lejeune model grid for a given spectral type and
1677: interpolating to the MIPS effective wavelengths). The upper envelope
1678: found in these figures is similar to the 24 \mum\ upper envelope found
1679: by Rieke \etal\ (2005) or Su \etal\ (2006) for 24 \mum\ excesses
1680: around A stars, or at 70 \mum\ by Su \etal\ (2006). The range of
1681: excess strengths found at any age could be a result of initial
1682: conditions, rates of evolution, or recent collisional events; there is
1683: no obvious way to determine the origin from these data alone. Currie
1684: \etal\ (2008) report seeing the decline of primordial disks and the
1685: rise of debris disks; this reinforces the importance of further study
1686: of stars with a range of excesses in the 8-10 Myr age range,
1687: specifically the need for high-quality complete disk fractions.
1688:
1689: \clearpage
1690: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
1691: \epsscale{1.0}
1692: \plotone{f13.eps}
1693: \caption{Plot of \ks$-$[24] vs.\ \ks$-$[70] for all of the objects
1694: considered here. Plus signs are objects detected (at 70 \mum) from
1695: the BPMG; open circles are detected objects from Tucanae-Horologium.
1696: All other objects (from both associations) are indicated as upper
1697: limits at 70 \mum. These results are consistent with an
1698: ``inside-out'' infrared excess reduction scenario, where 24 \mum\
1699: excesses disappear before 70 \mum\ excesses; see text for further
1700: disucssion.}
1701: \label{fig:colorcolor}
1702: \end{figure*}
1703: \clearpage
1704:
1705: Figure~\ref{fig:colorcolor} shows \ks$-$[24] vs.\ \ks$-$[70] for the
1706: objects considered here. It is clear not only which stars with
1707: excesses in one band also have excesses in the other band, but also
1708: very roughly the correlation of the size of the excess (with all the
1709: caveats about spectral type dependence discussed above). The MIPS
1710: measurements of $\epsilon$ Hya are consistent with a purely
1711: photospheric origin for its IR flux. Of the 8 stars identified above
1712: as having any excesses at 24 \mum, all also have clear excesses at 70
1713: \mum. All four objects with the largest 24 \mum\ excesses also have
1714: large 70 \mum\ excesses. Five additional stars are detected as
1715: having excesses at 70 \mum, but without significant excesses at 24
1716: \mum. For the stars with disk excesses at 24 \mum, the median
1717: \ks$-$[24] is 0.99 magnitudes; for those same stars, the median
1718: \ks$-$[70] is 4.5 magnitudes, significantly redder.
1719:
1720: A disk may be inferred to have an inner hole if it has an infrared
1721: excess at long wavelengths but not at short wavelengths, such as these
1722: stars with signficant 70 \mum\ excess and very small 24 \mum\ excess.
1723: By this definition, the majority of debris disks around older main
1724: sequence FGK stars possess inner holes (29 of 37 disks; Trilling
1725: \etal\ 2008), whereas only 8/44 debris disks around younger A stars do
1726: (Su \etal\ 2006). At ages of a few Myr, the circumstellar disks
1727: found in star-forming regions have a very low MIPS inner hole
1728: frequency (Rebull \etal\ 2007; Harvey \etal\ 2007; Young \etal\
1729: 2005). MIPS studies of young associations such at the BPMG provide a
1730: key bridge between the massive, young disks that generally lack inner
1731: holes, and the older, tenuous debris disks that often possess them.
1732: At age 8 Myr, the TW Hya and $\eta$ Cha groups show very few disks
1733: with MIPS inner holes (1/6 disks from TWA, Low \etal\ 2005 and
1734: reduction above, and 0/5 disks from $\eta$ Cha, Gautier \etal\ 2008).
1735: These young associations also possess a mixed population of disks
1736: with fractional infrared luminosities near 0.1 (characteristic of
1737: massive primordial disks, such as that of TW Hya) and $<$0.001
1738: (characteristic of optically thin debris disks, such as that of
1739: $\beta$ Pictoris). None of the stars with disks in the larger Sco-Cen
1740: association (part of which is age $\sim$5 Myr and the rest of which is
1741: age $\sim$10 Myr) possess MIPS inner holes (Chen \etal\ 2005a). The
1742: 12 Myr old BPMG (this work) contains only optically thin disks, with
1743: 4/11 disks possessing MIPS inner holes (note that we are including AG
1744: Tri A, since it has a proportionally much larger 70 \mum\ excess than
1745: any potential small 24 \mum\ excess). In the $\sim$ 30 Myr old
1746: Tuc-Hor association, 6/8 stars with disks have inner holes (this work,
1747: combined with Smith \etal\ 2006). A smooth increase of inner hole
1748: frequency with time is evident, and although small number statistics
1749: prevent strong conclusions, it is clear that the BPMG is the youngest
1750: stellar group in which the frequency of MIPS inner holes is clearly
1751: larger than that seen in the pre-main sequence stellar population.
1752: What is seen in the BPMG and these other clusters is consistent with
1753: expectations based on other clusters that stars lose their 24 \mum\
1754: excesses before their 70 \mum\ excesses (``inside-out''; \eg, Su
1755: \etal\ 2006).
1756:
1757: \clearpage
1758: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}
1759: \tablecaption{\vsini\ Values Used for BPMG Stars G0 and Later}
1760: \label{tab:vsini}
1761: \tablewidth{0pt}
1762: \tablehead{
1763: \colhead{star} & \colhead{\vsini\ (km s$^{-1}$)} }
1764: \startdata
1765: HIP 10679 & 7.8 \\
1766: HIP 12545 & 9.3 \\
1767: GJ 3305 & 5.3 \\
1768: HIP 23309 & 5.8 \\
1769: GJ 3322 A/B & 7.7 \\
1770: AO Men & 16 \\
1771: V343 Nor A/B & 11 \\
1772: V824 Ara A/B & 37 (companion 34) \\
1773: CD-64D1208 A/B & 102.7 \\
1774: PZ Tel & 63 \\
1775: AT Mic A/B & 10.6 (companion 17) \\
1776: AU Mic & 8.5 \\
1777: AZ Cap A/B & 14.6 \\
1778: WW PsA A & 14.0 \\
1779: WW PsA B & 24.3 \\
1780: \enddata
1781: \end{deluxetable}
1782: \clearpage
1783:
1784: \begin{figure*}[tbp]
1785: \epsscale{1.0}
1786: \plotone{f14.eps}
1787: \caption{Plot of \vsini\ (in km s$^{-1}$) vs.\ F$_{\rm meas}$/F$_{\rm
1788: pred}$ at 24 \mum\ (top) and at 70 \mum\ (bottom) for all of the BPMG
1789: G, K, and M stars considered here. While certainly not conclusive,
1790: these figures are reminiscent of effects seen in younger clusters such
1791: as Orion.}
1792: \label{fig:rotation}
1793: \end{figure*}
1794: \clearpage
1795:
1796: The G, K, and M stars in at least some clusters that are much younger
1797: than the BPMG, $\sim$1-5 Myr old, exhibit a correlation between
1798: rotation and infrared excess in that slower rotators are more likely
1799: to have infrared excesses, or disks (see, \eg, Rebull \etal\ 2006 and
1800: references therein). This agrees with theoretical expectations in
1801: that the young lower-mass GKM stars are thought to have strong
1802: magnetic fields that thread the (primordial) circumstellar disk,
1803: mediating accretion and locking the rotation of the star to that of
1804: the disk. However, by the $\sim$12 Myr age of the BPMG, and at the
1805: distances from the parent star of these disks emitting at 24 and 70
1806: \mum, no disk locking is expected to still be operating. In
1807: Figure~\ref{fig:rotation}, we examine the correlation of disk excess
1808: with rotation rates for the G, K, and M BPMG members. (The \vsini\
1809: values used for these stars appear in Table~6.) The faster-rotating
1810: lower-mass stars in the BPMG in Figure~\ref{fig:rotation} show a {\em
1811: weak} tendency to have a smaller disk excess. While certainly not
1812: conclusive, these figures are suggestive. Additional \vsini\ and
1813: rotation period determinations would be useful to test this
1814: correlation, as well as additional Spitzer measurements in other
1815: similarly aged clusters. Interestingly, Stauffer \etal\ (2007) find
1816: a similar correlation between 24 \mum\ excess and \vsini\ seen in open
1817: clusters primarily from the FEPS program (Formation and Evolution of
1818: Planetary Systems; Meyer \etal\ 2006) and the Pleiades. Given that
1819: all of our disk candidates in the BPMG now posess at best tenuous
1820: debris disks, the disk mass is insufficient (now) to regulate the
1821: stellar angular momentum as in the case of massive primordial disks.
1822: Perhaps these disks started out as more massive than the other BPMG
1823: members. Perhaps the disk dispersion timescale, which determines
1824: whether or not a disk still persists at $\sim$12 Myr, is set early on
1825: in the lifetime of the disk, when the angular momentum and mass flux
1826: through the disk is the highest, the central object is large, and the
1827: influence of disk locking (or braking) is the strongest. In that
1828: case, the {\em weak} correlation seen in Figure~\ref{fig:rotation} is the
1829: signature of a process operating at earlier times.
1830:
1831: Alternatively, strong stellar winds could play an important role in
1832: clearing the disk of small particles, as suggested by Plavchan \etal\
1833: (2005) and Chen \etal\ (2005a). Rapid rotation, which enhances the
1834: stellar dynamo and presumably the strength of the stellar wind, would
1835: then be associated with more tenuous disks as suggested by the data in
1836: Figure~\ref{fig:rotation}. Wind ablation of dust could be an ongoing
1837: process.
1838:
1839: We see no obvious way to test for whether winds (operating now and/or
1840: in the past) or disk locking (operating in the past) are more likely
1841: using these data; clearly these initial results will need future
1842: observational follow-up, such as the use of periods rather than
1843: \vsini, and a search for similar effects in other similarly-aged
1844: clusters. We emphasize again for clarity that the correlation seen in
1845: Figure~\ref{fig:rotation} is only for the GKM stars in the BPMG.
1846:
1847:
1848: \section{Conclusions}
1849: \label{sec:concl}
1850:
1851: We have presented here MIPS 24 and 70 \mum\ observations of 30 stars
1852: or star systems in the BPMG, as well as nine from Tucanae-Horologium,
1853: with 160 \mum\ observations for a subset of 12 BPMG stars. In
1854: several cases, the new MIPS measurements resolve source confusion and
1855: background contamination issues in the previous IRAS data.
1856:
1857: We found that 7 BPMG members have signficant 24 \mum\ excesses, or a
1858: disk fraction of 23\%. Eleven BPMG systems have significant 70
1859: \mum\ excesses (disk fraction of $\geq$37\%, as this is a lower
1860: limit). Five exhibit 160 \mum\ excesses, out of a biased sample of 12
1861: observed, and they have a range of 70:160 micron flux ratios. The
1862: disk fraction, and the size of the excesses measured at each
1863: wavelength, are both consistent with an ``inside-out'' infrared excess
1864: reduction scenario, wherein the shorter-wavelength excesses disappear
1865: before longer-wavelength excesses, and consistent with the overall
1866: decrease of disk frequency with stellar age, as seen in Spitzer
1867: studies of other young stellar groups.
1868:
1869: We characterized the disk properties using simple models and
1870: fractional infrared luminosities. Optically thick disks, seen in the
1871: 8 Myr age TW Hya and $\eta$ Cha associations, are entirely absent in
1872: the BPMG at age 12 Myrs.
1873:
1874:
1875:
1876:
1877: \acknowledgements
1878:
1879: L.\ M.\ R.\ wishes to acknowledge funding from the Spitzer
1880: Science Center to allow her to take a ``science retreat'' to
1881: work intensively on this paper.
1882: The authors wish to acknowledge the MIPS GTO team for allowing us to
1883: use the DAT to process the 160 \mum\ data. This work is based on
1884: observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated
1885: by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
1886: under a contract with NASA. Support for this work was provided by
1887: NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech. This research makes use
1888: of data archived and served by the NASA Star and Exoplanet Database
1889: (NStED) at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center. NStED is
1890: jointly funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1891: (NASA) via Research Opportunities in Space Sciences grant 2003 TPF-FS,
1892: and by NASA's Michelson Science Center. NStED is developed in
1893: collaboration with the NASA/IPAC InfraRed Science Archive (IRSA). This
1894: research has also made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
1895: Abstract Service, and of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS,
1896: Strasbourg, France. This research has also made use of data products
1897: from the Two Micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS), which is a joint project
1898: of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and
1899: Analysis Center, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space
1900: Administration and the National Science Foundation. These data were
1901: served by the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which is operated by
1902: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
1903: under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
1904: Administration. The research described in this paper was partially
1905: carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
1906: Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
1907: Administration.
1908:
1909: \appendix
1910: \section{Comments on individual objects}
1911: \label{sec:indobj}
1912:
1913: These comments on individual objects address the issues of (possibly)
1914: resolved objects, serendipitous detections, IR cirrus, and multiple
1915: systems. In some cases, the proximity of a true companion and/or
1916: infrared cirrus results in the low-spatial-resolution IRAS fluxes
1917: being anomalously high when compared with the MIPS fluxes. All of
1918: those instances are discussed here.
1919:
1920: In several cases, objects in close proximity to the target object were
1921: detected. Since these objects are bright enough to be detected in
1922: these shallow observations, these additional objects are also
1923: potential association members, and/or contributors to source confusion in
1924: lower spatial resolution observations such as IRAS. Based on the MIPS
1925: measurements, we conclude none are association members; see individual
1926: discussion below.
1927:
1928: \subsection{HIP 3556 (Tuc-Hor)}
1929:
1930: At 24 \mum, there are several objects easily visible besides the
1931: target, with several being of comparable brightness to the target.
1932: Two of them are easily visible in the 70 \mum\ image whereas HIP 3556
1933: is undetected. Few of them have obvious counterparts in a POSS or
1934: 2MASS image. Given their evidently steeply rising SEDs, we suspect
1935: that they are background galaxies.
1936:
1937:
1938: \subsection{$\phi$ Eri (Tuc-Hor)}
1939:
1940: Spitzer observations of $\phi$ Eri clearly detect it in 24 \mum\ to be
1941: 173 mJy; there is an emission peak at this location at 70 \mum, but it
1942: is comparable in size to the noise fluctuations found in this region,
1943: so it is listed as an upper limit in our study. The upper limit falls
1944: right on the expected photospheric flux.
1945:
1946: There is a nearby source 90$\arcsec$ away at 02h16m30.6s, -51d30m44s,
1947: measured to be 12.3 mJy (at 24 \mum) . This object is not detected at
1948: 70 \mum, but it is detected in 2MASS with \ks=4.13 mag. The resultant
1949: \ks$-$[24] color suggests that it is far too blue to be a star, but
1950: the PSF as seen in POSS plates appears stellar. This source is
1951: probably not a new association member.
1952:
1953:
1954: \subsection{HD 14082 and HIP 10679}
1955:
1956: HIP 10679 and HD 14082 are close enough to each other
1957: ($\sim10\arcsec$) to be observed in the same MIPS photometry field of
1958: view. Both objects are point sources at 24 \mum\ and have comparable
1959: fluxes at this bandpass. At this separation, these objects should be
1960: distinguishable at 70 \mum, but only one object is detected. Based on
1961: the central position of the object, we have assigned the measured flux
1962: to HIP 10679. This is a weak detection, with a signal-to-noise ratio
1963: of only $\sim$5. The PSF appears to be elliptical, with the major
1964: axis roughly a factor of twice the minor axis. It is not extended in
1965: the direction of the companion, or in the direction of the scan mirror
1966: motion. While it is possible that the object is truly resolved at 70
1967: \mum, the fact that it is not resolved at 24 \mum\ leads us to suspect
1968: that the apparently elliptical PSF is instrumental in nature. The
1969: object is so faint as to not be easily detectable in subsets of the
1970: data, so it is difficult to assess whether or not co-adding the data
1971: has caused this effect.
1972:
1973:
1974: \subsection{GSC 8056-482 (Tuc-Hor)}
1975:
1976: While only one BPMG object is expected to be included in this
1977: observation, several fainter objects are clearly detected in the 24
1978: \mum\ image. The closest and brightest one to GSC 8056-482 is
1979: 23$\arcsec$ away, located at 02h36m49.1s, -52d03m12.3s, and is
1980: measured to be 2.0 mJy. It is not detected in 2MASS or at 70 \mum.
1981:
1982:
1983: \subsection{HR 6070}
1984:
1985: HR 6070 appears in the IRAS PSC (but not the FSC) as a detection at
1986: all IRAS bands with coordinates slightly offset to the northwest from
1987: the optical position. However, the MIPS observations reveal an
1988: isolated point source with lower flux measured at 24 \mum\ and an
1989: upper limit at 70 \mum\ that is comparable to the detection reported
1990: by IRAS. The 24 \mum\ image reveals clear cirrus on the northwest
1991: side of the image, in the same direction as the reported center of the
1992: IRAS source, suggesting that the measured IRAS flux is contaminated by
1993: infrared cirrus. If all of the flux attributed to the point source
1994: in the IRAS catalog were really coming from the point source, we would
1995: have detected it, but we did not. The MIPS observations provide a
1996: much better understanding of any infrared excess present in this star,
1997: suggesting no excess at 24 \mum\ and providing a constraint at 70
1998: \mum.
1999:
2000:
2001: \subsection{V824 Ara A, B, \& C}
2002: \label{sec:v824}
2003:
2004: This triple system, located all within an arcminute, was also
2005: unresolved by IRAS. MIPS can clearly separate C from A/B at 24 \mum,
2006: but no objects are detected at 70 \mum. IRAS's beam size encompasses
2007: all three of these components. MIPS resolves the source confusion and
2008: does not find an IR excess in A/B or C.
2009:
2010: In addition to the components of this system, MIPS sees two additional
2011: objects, neither of which are seen at 70 \mum. Neither of these
2012: objects have a \ks$-$[24] color suggestive of an excess.
2013:
2014:
2015: \subsection{HD 164249}
2016:
2017: In the 24 \mum\ image for HD 164249, three objects are present, two of
2018: which are also seen at 70 \mum. (None of the objects are seen in our
2019: 160 \mum\ data.) The target of the observation is clearly apparent in
2020: both 24 and 70 \mum, and a second object appears 0.76$\arcmin$ away
2021: with a 24 \mum\ flux of 1220 mJy and a 70 \mum\ flux of 172 mJy. A
2022: third faint object 1.4$\arcmin$ away has a 756 $\mu$Jy flux at 24
2023: \mum. Both of these objects appear in the 2MASS catalog. The brighter
2024: object has a \ks$-$[24] color of 7.4; the fainter object has
2025: \ks$-$[24]=0.002. The latter is a photosphere with arguably no excess
2026: whatsoever at 24 \mum. This, combined with its overall faintness,
2027: suggests it is probably a background star. The former appears as a
2028: very faint smudge on POSS plates and has a clear elliptical shape in
2029: 2MASS images. The object appears in the 2MASS extended source catalog
2030: as a galaxy with name 2MASXJ18030752-5139225. It likely has
2031: influenced the measured flux for HD 164249 in lower spatial resolution
2032: measurements.
2033:
2034:
2035:
2036:
2037: \subsection{HR 6749/HR 6750}
2038:
2039: This binary system is unresolved by MIPS. IRAS measures a detection
2040: at all 4 bands suggesting an infrared excess and therefore
2041: circumstellar dust. MIPS is able to resolve apparent source
2042: confusion, placing the 24 \mum\ point at a photospheric level and
2043: putting constraints on the 70 \mum\ flux. The 24 \mum\ image suggests
2044: that there may be infrared cirrus that contributed to the measured
2045: IRAS flux; any background flux is not very bright at MIPS-24 (while
2046: MIPS has much more sensitive detectors that IRAS, it also samples much
2047: smaller angles on the sky, so the surface brightness sensitivity is
2048: not substantially different than IRAS). At 70 \mum, if all
2049: of the flux attributed to the point source in the IRAS catalog were
2050: really coming from the point source, we would have detected it, but we
2051: did not.
2052:
2053:
2054:
2055: \subsection{AT Mic}
2056:
2057: This object is detected at 24 \mum, but not at 70 \mum.
2058: There is another object at 24 \mum\ that is 1.5$\arcmin$
2059: away at 20h41m55.4s, $-$32d24m57s, with a 24 \mum\ flux of 2.8
2060: mJy. This object has a \ks$-$[24] color of $-$0.02, which is
2061: not indicative of any excess.
2062:
2063:
2064:
2065: \subsection{Resolved objects}
2066:
2067: We note for completeness that at least three objects in the BPMG,
2068: $\beta$ Pic itself (\eg, Golimowski \etal\ 2006), AU Mic (\eg, Graham
2069: \etal\ 2007), and HD 181327 (\eg, Schneider \etal\ 2006), are known to
2070: be resolved at other wavelengths. AG Tri A may be resolved as well
2071: (Ardila \etal\ 2007 in prep). Of these, $\beta$ Pic itself is the
2072: only one known to be resolved at MIPS wavelengths (Su \etal\ in
2073: preparation, see also Chen \etal\ 2007); the others, if they are
2074: resolved at MIPS wavelengths, are only subtly larger than the
2075: instrumental PSF. All of these famous objects are extensively
2076: discussed elsewhere, so we do not discuss them again here.
2077:
2078:
2079:
2080:
2081:
2082:
2083: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2084:
2085: %(several periods) AAS poster by L.E. Holloway, University of North Texas
2086: %Kate Su's recently accepted paper on A stars includes eta tel,
2087: %from which I got those MIPS fluxes.
2088:
2089: \bibitem[ali]{ali}Ali, B., \etal, 2005, BAAS, 37, 1409 (\#150.05)
2090: \bibitem[ardila]{ardila}Ardila, D., \etal, 2007 in prep
2091: \bibitem[barrado]{barrado}Barrado y Navascues, D., \etal, 1999, ApJL,
2092: 520, 123
2093: \bibitem[bsc]{bsc}Beichman, C. A., \etal, 1988, IRAS catalog and
2094: explanatory supplement
2095: \bibitem[beichman]{beichman}Beichman, C. A., \etal, 2006, \apj, 639, 1166
2096: \bibitem[bohren]{bohren} Bohren, C.F. \& Huffman, D.R. 1983, Absorption
2097: and Scattering of Light by Small Particles, Wiley, New York
2098: \bibitem[bryden]{bryden}Bryden, G., \etal, 2006, \apj, 636, 1098
2099: \bibitem[carp]{carp}Carpenter, J, \etal, 2006, \apjl, 651, 49
2100: \bibitem[chena]{chena}Chen, C., \etal, 2005a, \apj, 623, 493
2101: \bibitem[chenb]{chenb}Chen, C., \etal, 2005b, \apj, 634, 1372
2102: \bibitem[chen6]{chen6}Chen, C., \etal, 2006, \apjs, 166, 351
2103: \bibitem[chen7]{chen7}Chen, C., \etal, 2007, \apj, in press, astro-ph
2104: 0705.3023
2105: \bibitem[currie]{currie}Currie, T., \etal, 2008, \apj, in press,
2106: astro-ph 0709.2510
2107: \bibitem[dole]{dole}Dole, H., \etal, 2004, \apjs, 154, 87
2108: \bibitem[draine]{draine}Draine, B. T. 2007
2109: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/$\sim$draine
2110: \bibitem[engel]{engel}Engelbracht, C., 2008, \pasp, in press
2111: \bibitem[fazio]{fazio}Fazio, G.\ \etal, 2004, \apjs, 154, 10
2112: \bibitem[feig]{feig}Feigelson, E., \etal, 2006, \aj, 131, 1730
2113: \bibitem[gautier]{gautier}Gautier, N., \etal, 2007, \apj, 667, 527
2114: \bibitem[gautier2]{gautier2}Gautier, N., \etal, 2008, \apj, submitted
2115: \bibitem[gillett]{gillett}Gillett, F., 1986, in Light on Dark Matter,
2116: ed., F. P. Israel (Dordrecht: Reidel), 61
2117: \bibitem[goli]{goli}Golimowski, D., \etal, 2006, \aj, 131, 3109
2118: \bibitem[gordon]{gordon}Gordon, K., \etal, 2005, \pasp, 117, 503
2119: \bibitem[gordon2]{gordon2}Gordon, K., \etal, 2008, \pasp, in press
2120: \bibitem[gorlova04]{gorlova04}Gorlova, N., \etal, 2004, \apjs, 154, 448
2121: \bibitem[gorlova06]{gorlova06}Gorlova, N., \etal, 2006, \apj, 649, 1028
2122: \bibitem[graham]{graham}Graham, J., \etal, 2007, \apj, 654, 595
2123: \bibitem[harvey]{harvey}Harvey, P, \etal, 2007, \apj, 663, 1139
2124: \bibitem[houck]{houck}Houck, J., \etal, 2005, \apjs, 154, 18
2125: \bibitem[houk]{houk}Houk, J., \etal, 1982, Michigan Spectral Survey,
2126: volume 3, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan (1982 MSS, C03, 0)
2127: \bibitem[rayjay]{rayjay}Jayawardhana, R., \etal, 2006, \apj, 648, 1206
2128: \bibitem[kaisler]{kaisler}Kaisler, D., \etal, 2004, \aap, 414, 175
2129: \bibitem[kalas]{kalas}Kalas, P., \etal, 2004, Science, 303, 1990
2130: \bibitem[kenyon]{kenyon}Kenyon, S.J. \& Bromley, B. C. 2002, ApJ 577, L35
2131: \bibitem[kim]{kim}Kim \etal, 2005, \apj, 632, 659
2132: \bibitem[krist]{krist}Krist, J., \etal, 2004, \aj, 129, 1008
2133: \bibitem[krist2]{krist2}Krist, J., 2005, STinyTim release notes,\\ http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/archanaly/contributed/stinytim/index.html
2134: \bibitem[lejeune]{lejeune}Lejeune, T., Cuisinier F., \& Buser R.
2135: 1997, \aaps, 125, 229
2136: \bibitem[lejeune2]{lejeune2}Lejeune, T., Cuisinier F., \& Buser R.
2137: 1998, \aaps, 130, 65
2138: \bibitem[low]{low}Low, F., Smith, P.S., Werner, M., Chen, C., Krause,
2139: V., Jura, M., \& Hines, D., 2005, \apj, 631, 1170
2140: \bibitem[mako]{mako}Makovoz, D., \& Marleau, F. 2005, \pasp, 117, 1113
2141: \bibitem[mamaj]{mamaj}Mamajek, E., \etal, 2004, ApJ, 612, 496
2142: \bibitem[mathis]{mathis}Mathis, J.S., Rumpl, W. \& Nordseick, K. H. 1977, ApJ 217 425
2143: \bibitem[meyer]{meyer}Meyer, M., \etal, 2006, \pasp, 118, 1690
2144: \bibitem[meyer2]{meyer2}Meyer, M., \etal, 2007, in Protostars and
2145: Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.), University of
2146: Arizona Press, Tucson, page 573
2147: \bibitem[moshir]{moshir}Moshir, M., Kopman, G., Conrow, T., IRAS
2148: Faint Source Survey and Explanatory Supplement
2149: \bibitem[oaresce]{paresce}Paresce, F., \& Burrows, C., 1987, \apjl,
2150: 319, 23
2151: \bibitem[parsons]{parsons}Parsons, S. B., Buta, N. S., Bidelman, W.
2152: P., 1996, VisieR On-line Data Catalog: VI/32, 6032
2153: \bibitem[plavchan]{plavchan}Plavchan, P., Jura, M., \&
2154: Lipscy, S.J., 2005, \apj, 631, 1161
2155: \bibitem[rebull]{rebull}Rebull, L., \etal, 2006, \apj, 646, 297
2156: \bibitem[perseus]{perseus}Rebull, L., \etal, 2007, \apjs, 171, 447
2157: \bibitem[rieke]{rieke}Rieke, G., \etal, 2004, ApJS, 153, 25
2158: \bibitem[rieke2]{rieke2}Rieke, G., \etal, 2005, ApJ, 620, 1010
2159: \bibitem[schn]{schn}Schneider, G., \etal, 2006, \apj, 650, 414 %(hd 181327: 0.220, 1.58, 0.750 Jy)
2160: \bibitem[sic]{sic}Siciliar-Aguilar, A., \etal, 2006, \apj, 638, 897
2161: \bibitem[siegler]{siegler}Siegler, N., \etal, 2007, \apj, 654,
2162: 580
2163: \bibitem[2mass]{2mass}Skrutskie, M., \etal, 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
2164: \bibitem[smith]{smith}Smith, P.S., Hines, D., Low, F., Gehrz, R.,
2165: Polomski, E., \& Woodward, C., 2006, \apjl, 644, 125
2166: \bibitem[song]{song_01}Song, I., \etal, 2003, \apj, 599, 342
2167: \bibitem[song]{song_02}Song, I., \etal, 2008, submitted
2168: \bibitem[stans]{stans}Stansberry, J. \etal, 2008, \pasp, in press
2169: \bibitem[stauffer]{stauffer}Stauffer, J., \etal, 2005, \aj, 130,
2170: 1834
2171: \bibitem[stauffer2]{stauffer2}Stauffer, J., \etal, 2007, in press, from IAUS 243,
2172: ``Star-Disk Interaction in Young Stars,'' held in Grenoble, France, in
2173: May 2007, ed. J. Bouvier.
2174: \bibitem[Su2]{su2}Su, K., \etal, 2004, BAAS from AAS \#205, 17.09
2175: \bibitem[Su]{su}Su, K., \etal, 2006, \apj, 653, 675
2176: \bibitem[silver]{silver}Silverstone, M., \etal, 2006, \apj, 639, 1138
2177: \bibitem[syl]{syl}Sylvester, R.\ J. \& Skinner, C.\ J. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 457
2178: \bibitem[torres][torres]Torres, C., \etal, 2006, \aap, 460, 695
2179: \bibitem[trilling]{trilling}Trilling, D., \etal, 2007, ApJ, 658, 1289
2180: \bibitem[trilling2]{trilling2}Trilling, D., \etal, 2008, ApJ, submitted
2181: \bibitem[werner]{werner}Werner, M., \etal, 2004, ApJS, 154, 1
2182: \bibitem[werner2]{werner2}Werner, M., \etal, 2006, ARAA, 44, 269
2183: \bibitem[young]{young}Young, E., \etal, 2004, ApJS, 154, 428
2184: \bibitem[cham]{cham}Young, K., \etal, 2005, \apj, 628, 283
2185: \bibitem[zuckerman01a]{zucker01a}Zuckerman, B., Song, I., \&
2186: Webb, R., 2001, \apj, 559, 388
2187: \bibitem[zuckerman01b]{zucker01b}Zuckerman, B., \etal, 2001,
2188: \apjl, 562, 87
2189: \bibitem[araa]{araa}Zuckerman, B.\ \& Song, I.\ 2004, \araa, 42, 685
2190:
2191: \end{thebibliography}
2192:
2193:
2194:
2195: \end{document}
2196: