1: %\documentclass{aastex}

2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: %\documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4,psfig]{article}

4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

5: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

6: \usepackage[onecolumn,numberedappendix]{emulateapj5}

7: %\usepackage[twocolumn,numberedappendix]{emulateapj5}

8: 

9: 

10: 

11: %\documentstyle[emulateapj5]{article}   % emulate apj

12: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

13: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

14: \usepackage{epsfig}

15: \usepackage{rotating}

16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% macro definitions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

17: \tightenlines

18: %\slugcomment{Accepted to the Astrophysical Journal Letters}

19: 

20: 

21: \font\slantsym=cmsy10

22: 

23: %\egb

24: \newcommand{\epsth}     {\epsilon_{\rm th}}

25: 

26: \newcommand     \bfv  {{\bf v}}

27: \newcommand     \bbB  {\overline{\bf B}}

28: 

29: \newcommand     \ts  {\times}

30: \newcommand     \bfb  {\bf b}

31: \newcommand     \lb{\langle}

32: \newcommand     \rb{\rangle}

33: \newcommand     \curl{\nabla {\ts}}

34: \newcommand\bbJ{\overline {\bf J}}

35: \newcommand\bB{\overline { B}}

36: \newcommand\bbA{\overline {\bf A}}

37: \newcommand\bbV{\overline {\bf V}}

38: \newcommand\bV{\overline V}

39: \newcommand\bfA{{\bf A}}

40: \newcommand\bfa{{\bf a}}

41: \newcommand\bfB{{\bf B}}

42: \newcommand\bfu{{\bf u}}

43: 

44: \newcommand \lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

45:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}

46: \newcommand \gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

47:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}

48: 

49: %\eb

50: 

51: \newcommand     \slN    {{\hbox{\slantsym\char'116}}}   %calligraphic N

52: 

53: \newcommand     \Angstrom       {\,{\rm \AA}}

54: \newcommand     \AU     {\,{\rm AU}}

55: \newcommand     \cm     {\,{\rm cm}}

56: \newcommand     \days   {\,{\rm d}}

57: \newcommand     \diss   {{\rm diss}}

58: \newcommand     \erg    {\,{\rm ergs}}

59: \newcommand     \etal   {{\it et al.}}

60: \newcommand     \eV     {\,{\rm eV}}

61: \newcommand     \fl     {{\rm fl.}}

62: \newcommand     \g              {\,{\rm g}}

63: \newcommand     \gtsim  {\gtrsim}                %apj version

64: \newcommand     \He     {{\rm He}}

65: \newcommand     \HH     {{\rm H}_2}

66: \newcommand     \Hz     {\,{\rm Hz}}

67: \newcommand     \Jy     {\,{\rm Jy}}

68: \newcommand     \keV    {\,{\rm keV}}

69: \newcommand     \K              {\,{\rm K}}

70: \newcommand     \kms    {\,{\rm km~s}^{-1}}

71: \newcommand     \kpc    {\,{\rm kpc}}

72: \newcommand     \Lsol   {L_{\odot}}

73: \newcommand     \ltsim  {\lesssim}               %apj version

74: \newcommand     \Mpc    {\,{\rm Mpc}}

75: \newcommand     \Msol   {M_{\odot}}

76: \newcommand     \NN     {\tilde{N}}             % Number of molecules in shell

77: \newcommand     \pc     {\,{\rm pc}}

78: \newcommand     \pd     {\gamma}

79: \newcommand     \rmH    {{\rm H}}

80: \newcommand     \s              {\,{\rm s}}

81: \newcommand     \sr     {\,{\rm sr}}

82: \newcommand     \UV     {{\rm uv}}

83: \newcommand     \yr     {\,{\rm yr}}

84: \newcommand{\btdnote}[1]{{\bf[#1]}}

85: 

86: \newcommand{\smyr}{{ M_\odot\ \rm yr^{-1}}}

87: \newcommand{\sm}{{M_\odot}}

88: \newcommand{\cth}{c_{\rm th}}

89: \newcommand{\tds}{t_{d*}}

90: \newcommand{\tff}{t_{\rm ff}}

91: \newcommand{\tffs}{t_{{\rm ff},s}}

92: \newcommand{\tsf}{t_{*f}}

93: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

94: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

95: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

96: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

97: \newcommand{\e}{$^{-1}$}

98: \newcommand{\ee}{$^{-2}$}

99: \newcommand{\eee}{$^{-3}$}

100: \newcommand{\caln}{{\cal N}}

101: \newcommand{\krho}{{k_\rho}}

102: \newcommand{\phig}{\phi_{\rm geom}}

103: \newcommand{\phinon}{\phi_{\rm *non}}

104: \newcommand{\phipb}{\phi_{{\bar P}}}

105: \newcommand{\phipc}{\phi_{P,\,\rm core}}

106: \newcommand{\phirc}{\phi_{\rho,\,\rm core}}

107: \newcommand{\alv}{\alpha_{\rm vir}}

108: \newcommand{\mvir}{M_{\rm vir}}

109: \newcommand{\mg}{M_{\rm g}}

110: \newcommand{\mbe}{M_{\rm BE}}

111: \newcommand{\mth}{M_{\rm th}}

112: \newcommand{\mds}{\dot m_*}

113: \newcommand{\mdsd}{\dot m_{*d}}

114: \newcommand{\scl}{\Sigma_{\rm cl}}

115: \newcommand{\mcl}{M_{\rm cl}}

116: \newcommand{\psc}{P_{s,\, \rm core}}

117: \newcommand{\pcl}{P_{\rm cl}}

118: \newcommand{\rcl}{R_{\rm cl}}

119: \newcommand{\svir}{\Sigma_{\rm vir}}

120: \newcommand{\mcore}{M_{\rm core}}

121: \newcommand{\msf}{m_{*f}}

122: \newcommand{\ecore}{\epsilon_{\rm core}}

123: \newcommand{\esd}{\epsilon_{*d}}

124: \newcommand{\rc}{R_{\rm core}}

125: \newcommand{\fg}{f_{\rm g}}

126: \newcommand{\lcr}{\langle c^2\rangle}

127: \newcommand{\lsr}{\langle \sigma^2\rangle}

128: \newcommand{\lsrcl}{\langle \sigma_{\rm cl}^2\rangle}

129: \newcommand{\rimp}{r_{\rm imp}}

130: 

131: \newcommand{\htwo}      {H$_2$}

132: \newcommand{\nh}        {n_{\rm H}}

133: \newcommand{\mdir}      {M_{\rm dir}}

134: 

135: \newcommand{\alphat}    {\alpha^{(2)}}

136: \newcommand{\mdw}       {\dot m_w}

137: \newcommand{\muh}       {\mu_{\rm H}}

138: \newcommand{\mdmsw}     {\dot m_{msw}}

139: \newcommand{\rmsw}      {\rho_{msw}}

140: \newcommand{\sch}       {S_{\rm ch}}

141: \newcommand{\vmsw}      {v_{msw}}

142: \newcommand{\vp}        {\varpi}

143: \newcommand{\vpc}       {\varpi_c}

144: \newcommand{\vpco}      {\varpi_{c0}}

145: \newcommand{\vpm}       {\varpi_{\rm max}}

146: \newcommand{\vpmo}      {\varpi_{\rm max,\, 0}}

147: \newcommand{\vpo}       {\varpi_0}

148: \newcommand{\vzcs}      {v_{zc*}}

149: \newcommand{\xm}        {x_{\rm max}}

150: \newcommand{\xom}       {x_{0\, \rm max}}

151: 

152: \newcommand{\lal}       {Lyman $\alpha$}

153: \newcommand{\btl}       {\bar\tau_L}

154: \newcommand{\calf}      {{\cal F}}

155: \newcommand{\dnd}       {\Delta\nu_D}

156: \newcommand{\dvd}       {\Delta v_D}

157: \newcommand{\dvds}      {\Delta v_{D,\, 6}}

158: \newcommand{\rhk}       {\rho_{\rm HK}}

159: \newcommand{\teff}      {\bar\tau_{\rm eff}}

160: 

161: \newlength{\figwidth}

162: \addtolength{\figwidth}{12.5cm}

163: 

164: %------- delete following for submission to ApJ --------

165: \pagestyle{myheadings}

166: % today's date

167: %use number register 200 for "decade"

168: \countdef\decade=200

169: \decade=0

170: \advance\decade by \year

171: %\advance\decade by -2000       %to suppress two leading digits of yearb

172: \countdef\hours=201

173: \hours=0

174: \advance\hours by \time

175: \divide\hours by 60

176: \countdef\mins=202

177: \mins=0

178: \advance\mins by \hours

179: \multiply\mins by 60

180: \multiply\hours by 100

181: \countdef\miltime=203

182: \miltime=0

183: \advance\miltime by \hours

184: \advance\miltime by \time

185: \advance\miltime by -\mins

186: \newcommand     \todayd{\number\decade.\number\month.\number\day.\number\miltime}

187: %\markright{\todayd: DRAFT}

188: %---------------------------------------------------------------

189: 

190: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

191: 

192: \begin{document}

193: 

194: \title{Astrometry of the Dynamical Ejection of the Becklin-Neugebauer Object from $\theta^1$ Ori C}

195: 

196: %\centerline{DRAFT: \today}

197: 

198: \author{Jonathan C. Tan}

199: 

200:         

201: \affil{Dept. of Astronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA\\jt@astro.ufl.edu}

202: 

203: 

204: 

205: \begin{abstract}

206: We show that the proper motion of the Becklin-Neugebauer (BN) object

207: is consistent with its dynamical ejection from the $\theta^1$~Ori~C

208: binary, contrary to recent claims by G\'omez et al. Continued radio

209: observations of BN and future precise astrometric observations of

210: $\theta^1$~Ori~C with SIM and the Orion Nebula Cluster with GAIA can

211: constrain the properties of this ejection event, with implications for

212: theories of how the nearest example of massive star formation is

213: proceeding.

214: \end{abstract}

215: 

216: \keywords{stars: formation --- stars: kinematics}

217: 

218: \section{Introduction}\label{S:intro}

219: 

220: Understanding massive star formation remains one of the most

221: challenging and important problems of contemporary astrophysics

222: (Beuther et al. 2007; Zinnecker \& Yorke 2007). The complexity of the

223: process means that massive star formation theories, such as the

224: turbulent core model (McKee \& Tan 2003), the competitive accretion

225: model (Bonnell \& Bate 2006) and stellar coalescence model (Bonnell et

226: al. 1998; Clarke \& Bonnell 2008) require close testing against

227: observed systems. The closest forming (i.e. accreting) massive star is

228: thought to be radio source I (Menten \& Reid 1995) within the Orion

229: Nebula Cluster (ONC), at a distance of $414\pm7$~pc (Menten et

230: al. 2007, adopted throughout), in the Kleinmann-Low (KL) region. As

231: reviewed by Tan (2008), this source has been used as observational

232: evidence in support of all three of the above theories. Part of this

233: confusion is due to the Becklin-Neugebauer (BN) object, 9.9\arcsec to

234: the NW (Fig.~1), which is a fast moving (radio-ONC-frame proper motion

235: of $\mu_{\rm BN}=13.2\pm 1.1\:{\rm mas\:yr^{-1}}$, i.e. $v_{\rm

236: 2D,BN}=25.9\pm2.2\:{\rm km\:s^{-1}}$ towards P.A.$_{\rm

237: BN}=-27^\circ.5\pm4^\circ$, Plambeck et al. 1995; G\'omez et al. 2008)

238: embedded B star ($L_{\rm BN}=(2.1 - 8.5)\times 10^3L_\odot$, Gezari,

239: Backman \& Werner 1998, equivalent to a zero age main sequence mass

240: $m_{\rm BN,zams} = 9.3\pm2.0\sm$). This proper motion implies that BN

241: has been moving through the KL region and made a close, possibly

242: coincident, passage with source {\it I} about 500 years ago. Thus to

243: understand the nearest example of massive star formation, we need to

244: understand the origin of BN's motion.

245: 

246: Including the $(+21) - (+8) = +13\:{\rm km\:s^{-1}}$ radial velocity

247: of BN with respect to the ONC mean (Scoville et al. 1983; Walker

248: 1983), the 3D ONC-frame velocity of BN is $v_{\rm 3D,BN}=29\pm3\:{\rm

249: km\:s^{-1}}$, and its kinetic energy is $E_{\rm BN} =

250: (8.3\pm2.3)\times 10^{46} (m_{\rm BN}/10\sm)\:{\rm ergs}$. BN is very

251: likely to have formed somewhere in the ONC and then attained its high

252: speed by a close interaction with a massive multiple stellar system

253: followed by dynamical ejection (Poveda, Ruiz \& Allen 1967).

254: 

255: Tan (2004) proposed BN was launched from the $\theta^1$~Ori~C binary

256: (also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bn}), since this is the only stellar

257: system in the ONC known to have all the physical properties required

258: by this scenario: (1) a location along BN's past trajectory

259: (\S\ref{S:ast}); (2) an (optical)-ONC-frame proper motion

260: ($\mu_{\theta^1C}=2.3\pm0.2\:{\rm mas\:yr^{-1}}$, van Altena et

261: al. 1988, i.e. $v_{\rm 2D,\theta^1C} = 4.5\pm0.4\:{\rm km\:s^{-1}}$,

262: towards $\rm P.A._{\theta^1C}=142^\circ.4\pm4^\circ$) that is in the

263: opposite direction to BN (the direction to BN from $\theta^1$~Ori~C is

264: a P.A.$=-30^\circ.949$) and is of the appropriate magnitude (the

265: dynamical mass of BN implied by this motion agrees with the estimate

266: of $m_{\rm BN,zams}$ and is $m_{\rm BN,dyn}=8.6\pm1.0\sm$ assuming

267: negligible error in $m_{\theta^1C}=49.5\sm$ and negligible motion of

268: the pre-ejection triple system in this direction; a pre-ejection

269: motion of 0.35~mas/yr along this axis (\S\ref{S:high}) would

270: contribute an additional $1.5\sm$ uncertainty); (3) primary

271: ($m_{\theta^1C-1}=34\sm$) and secondary ($m_{\theta^1C-2}=15.5\sm$)

272: masses greater than $m_{\rm BN}$ (Kraus et al. 2007); (4) a semi-major

273: axis of $a=17.0\pm5.8$~AU (Patience et al. 2008) and thus a total

274: orbital energy ($E_{\rm tot}=Gm_{\theta^1C-1}m_{\theta^1C-2}/(2a)=

275: (2.7\pm0.9)\times 10^{47}\:{\rm ergs}$) greater than the sum of BN's

276: kinetic energy and $\theta^1$~Ori~C's kinetic energy ($1.00\times

277: 10^{46}\:{\rm ergs}$) (see Tan 2008 for a review). Note,

278: $\theta^1$~Ori~C's recoil in this scenario is large enough to remove

279: it from the Trapezium region (see Pflamm-Altenburg \& Kroupa 2006 for

280: theoretical studies of the dynamical decay of Trapezium-like systems)

281: and may be enough to eject it from the ONC completely, with

282: implications for the effectiveness of its ionizing feedback on

283: disrupting the star cluster formation process.

284: 

285: Rodr\'iguez et al. (2005) and Bally \& Zinnecker (2005) proposed BN

286: was launched from an interaction with radio source {\it I}, which

287: would require this system to be a massive binary, recoiling

288: away from any large scale ($\gtrsim 100$~AU) gas that it was

289: originally accreting.

290: %(see Fig.~\ref{fig:bn}), thought to be a massive protostar (Tan 2008 and

291: %references therein). 

292: G\'omez et al. (2008) used the relative motion to BN with respect to

293: source {\it I} to claim that BN could not have made a close passage

294: with $\theta^1$~Ori~C, excluding this possibility at the 5-10~$\sigma$

295: level.

296: 

297: We show in \S\ref{S:ast} that if BN's motion is considered in the

298: reference frame of the ONC, then a close (coincident) passage with

299: $\theta^1$~Ori~C is allowed by the data, which permits the scenario of

300: dynamical ejection of BN from $\theta^1$~Ori~C. In \S\ref{S:high} we

301: discuss the potential of future high precision astrometric

302: measurements to constrain the properties of BN's dynamical ejection,

303: which then constrain BN's interaction distance with source {\it I},

304: the mass of source {\it I}, and thus the strength of tidal

305: perturbations on the massive protostar during this encounter.

306: 

307: \vspace{0.2in}

308: 

309: \section{Astrometry of BN in the Orion Nebula Cluster}\label{S:ast}

310: 

311: \begin{figure}[h]

312: \begin{center}

313: \epsfig{

314: %prop3

315:         file=f1.eps,

316:         angle=0,

317:         width=\figwidth

318: }

319: \end{center}

320: \caption{ \label{fig:bn} This diagram shows the positions of the

321: Trapezium stars $\theta^1$~Ori~A, $\theta^1$~Ori~B, $\theta^1$~Ori~C

322: and $\theta^1$~Ori~D that make up the core of the ONC. The positions

323: of radio sources I and BN are also shown. The coordinates are relative

324: to the present position of source I ($\alpha$(J2000)=05 35 14.5141,

325: $\delta$(J2000)=-05 22 30.556) (Gomez et al. 2008). The proper motions

326: relative to the cluster of BN (Gomez et al. 2008) and $\theta^1$~Ori~C

327: (van Altena et al. 1988) are indicated with the arrows. Past

328: trajectories (dashed line) and $1\sigma$ uncertainties (dotted lines)

329: are drawn.  }

330: \end{figure}

331: 

332: 

333: To determine BN's past trajectory through the ONC we use the absolute

334: proper motion of BN ($\mu_\alpha {\rm cos}\delta = -5.3\pm0.9 {\rm

335: mas\:yr^{-1}}$, $\mu_\delta=9.4\pm1.1 {\rm mas\:yr^{-1}}$ ($1\sigma$

336: errors); G\'omez et al. 2008) and then correct for the motion of the

337: ONC (mean of 35 radio sources within central 0.1~pc of ONC:

338: $\mu_\alpha {\rm cos}\delta = +0.8\pm0.2 {\rm mas\:yr^{-1}}$,

339: $\mu_\delta=-2.3\pm0.2 {\rm mas\:yr^{-1}}$; G\'omez et al. 2005). The

340: ONC-frame proper motions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bn}. One sees that

341: the past trajectory of BN through the ONC overlaps within the

342: $1\sigma$ errors with the present position of $\theta^1$~Ori~C. Given the

343: motions of BN and $\theta^1$~Ori~C, the time of coincidence (i.e. when the

344: dynamical ejection took place) was 4530 years ago, i.e. about 174

345: orbital periods of $\theta^1$~Ori~C (although the orbital period is only

346: poorly constrained at present to $26\pm13$~years, Patience et

347: al. 2008).

348: %This figure also shows that the

349: %motion of $\Theta^1C$ relative to the ONC (as defined by the average

350: %of van Altena et al. 1988's optical sample) is opposite (within the

351: %uncertainties) to the direction of the vector to BN from $\Theta^1C$.

352: 

353: G\'omez et al. (2008) excluded a coincidence between BN and $\theta^1$~Ori~C

354: because they used the motion of BN with respect to source {\it I}

355: (which is measured using relative astrometry to greater accuracy so

356: has smaller error bars), but did not allow for the fact that their

357: data indicate that source {\it I} is moving. In the ONC frame this

358: motion is claimed to be $\mu_\alpha {\rm cos}\delta = -3.7\pm1.2 {\rm

359: mas\:yr^{-1}}$, $\mu_\delta=-3.4\pm1.3 {\rm mas\:yr^{-1}}$,

360: corresponding to $\mu_{\rm I}=5.0\pm1.3\:{\rm mas\:yr^{-1}}$

361: (i.e. $9.9\pm2.6\rm km\s^{-1}$) towards a

362: P.A.$=+133^\circ\pm16^\circ$. 

363: %If one measures BN's motion in the ONC

364: %frame, then, as we have shown, its past trajectory overlaps with

365: %$\Theta^1C$'s position.

366: 

367: %\section{Motion of the Massive Protostar Source {\it I}}

368: 

369: We note, as a separate point, that source {\it I} is elongated along the

370: NW-SE axis, i.e. towards P.A.$\simeq+135^\circ$ (Reid et al. 2007). If

371: the source exhibits variability affecting the location of the centroid

372: of its emission, then this could lead to an apparent, but false,

373: proper motion. This effect is a potential source of additional

374: uncertainty in the motion reported for source {\it I} (and for source

375: {\it n}) by G\'omez et al. (2008).

376: 

377: Source {\it I} is thought to be a massive protostar and a large proper

378: motion would be interesting for theories of massive star formation.

379: F\~ur\'esz et al. (2008) measured the distribution of radial velocities

380: in the ONC, finding it could be well fit by a Gaussian with

381: $\sigma_{1D}=3.1\:{\rm km\:s^{-1}}$, for both the entire cluster and

382: for stars within a 15\arcmin\ radius of the Trapezium. Assuming an

383: isotropic velocity distribution, the proper motions should exhibit a

384: Gaussian distribution of motions with $\sigma_{2D}=4.4\kms$. In

385: comparison, Source {\it I}'s claimed motion of $9.9\pm2.6\rm

386: km\s^{-1}$ is $(2.3\pm 0.6)\sigma_{2D}$, i.e. not significantly larger

387: than expected of a typical cluster member. Note, Jones \& Walker

388: (1988) found $\sigma_{2D}=2.9\kms$ from direct observation of proper

389: motions (adjusted to $d_{\rm ONC}=414$~pc), for which source {\it I}'s

390: motion would then be $(3.4\pm 0.9)\sigma_{2D}$. G\'omez et

391: al. (2005) found $\sigma_{2D}=7.6\kms$ based on proper motions of 35

392: radio sources, for which source {\it I}'s motion would then be

393: $(1.3\pm 0.3)\sigma_{2D}$. We conclude, in contrast to G\'omez et

394: al. (2008), that it is premature to claim that source {\it I} has an

395: anomalously large motion compared to other ONC stars.

396: 

397: 

398: \section{Potential of High Precision Astrometry with SIM}\label{S:high}

399: 

400: For wide angle absolute astrometry, SIM should be able to achieve a

401: parallax accuracy of about 5~$\mu$as. Assuming a distance of

402: about 400~pc, this will allow a parallax distance measurement accurate

403: to 0.2\%, i.e. 0.9~pc. 

404: %Note the ONC is a couple of parsecs in extent,

405: %so SIM observations of other stars have the potential to determine the

406: %3D structure of this cluster, especially if relative astrometry of the

407: %narrow-angle mode can be used to infer relative distances.

408: 

409: Once the motions of the primary and secondary components of

410: $\theta^1$~Ori~C due to their binary orbit are accounted for, then the

411: absolute proper motion of the system should be known to an accuracy of

412: a few $\mu$as/yr. By averaging over many stars, an even greater

413: accuracy should be achievable for the absolute proper motion of the

414: ONC with GAIA. Since $\theta^1$~Ori~C is moving at a few mas/yr in the

415: ONC frame (van Altena et al. 1988), then the accuracy of the position

416: angle of the direction of motion would be $\sim0.06^\circ$. Presently it

417: is only known to about 4$^\circ$.

418: 

419: If, as seems very likely, BN was ejected from $\theta^1$~Ori~C, it should

420: have been ejected in exactly the opposite direction to $\theta^1$~Ori~C's

421: motion as measured in the center of mass frame of the pre-ejection

422: triple system. Comparison of the ONC-frame motion of $\theta^1$~Ori~C with

423: the present position and ONC-frame motion of BN, will yield

424: information on motion of the pre-ejection triple system and any

425: accelerations experienced by the stars since ejection. 

426: 

427: The expected size of pre-ejection triple system proper motion is

428: uncertain. If the system (with total mass $\simeq 60\sm$) was in

429: kinetic energy equilibrium with the other ONC stars (with, say,

430: typical mass $1.0\sm$ and $\sigma_{2D}=4.0\kms$), then we would expect

431: it to have a plane of sky motion $\sim 0.52\kms$ equivalent to a

432: proper motion of 0.26~mas/yr. The observed proper motion dispersion of

433: bright ($V\lesssim12.5$), i.e. massive, stars is $0.70\pm0.06$~mas/yr

434: (van Altena et al. 1988). Assuming a 0.5~mas/yr proper motion for the

435: pre-ejection triple system, of which 0.35~mas/yr would be expected to

436: be tangential to the ejection axis, implies that the ONC-frame proper

437: motion vectors of $\theta^1$~Ori~C and BN would be misaligned by $10^\circ$

438: from direct opposition. The current observed misalignment is

439: $10^\circ\pm6^\circ$. Thus, in the limit that subsequent accelerations

440: are negligible, high precision ONC-frame proper motions of $\theta^1$~Ori~C

441: and BN (the latter expected from continued radio observations) can

442: constrain the motion of the pre-ejection triple system.

443: 

444: %Equivalently an analysis of absolute proper motions of BN and

445: %$\Theta^1C$ combined with an accurate measurement of the ONC's proper

446: %motion (e.g. provided by GAIA), will 

447: 

448: 

449: The expected gravitational accelerations of $\theta^1$~Ori~C and BN depend

450: on the distribution of mass in their surroundings. Their trajectories

451: are taking them away from the ONC center, so they will be experiencing

452: a deceleration associated with climbing out of the cluster

453: potential. This effect is largest for BN, but it is still small. BN

454: has moved 0.12~pc (projected) from the ejection site, and if the

455: enclosed mass is 500~$\sm$ (likely to be a conservative upper limit,

456: e.g. Hillenbrand \& Hartmann 1998), then for a starting velocity of

457: $30\kms$, it would have decelerated by only 0.6~$\kms$.

458: 

459: Close passage with individual stars can also cause more significant

460: accelerations. $\theta^1$~Ori~C's trajectory may have brought it into

461: relatively close proximity with $\theta^1$~Ori~A (a B0 star, i.e. $16\sm$,

462: 13\arcsec\ to the NW, with a visual companion at 100~AU of $4\sm$ and

463: a spectroscopic companion at $\sim 1$~AU of $\sim 3\sm$, Schertl et

464: al. 2003). However, the relative motion of these stars is only about

465: 1.2~mas~$\rm yr^{-1}$ (van Altena et al. 1988) so that the time of

466: closest approach would have been about $10^4$~yr ago, long before the

467: proposed interaction of $\theta^1$~Ori~C with BN.

468: 

469: More importantly, BN made a close passage to source {\it I} about 500

470: years ago. From the bolometric luminosity of the KL region, source

471: {\it I} is estimated to have a protostellar mass of about

472: $20\:M_\odot$.  As an example of the magnitude of the deflections that

473: can be expected, treating BN as a massless test particle, its

474: deflection angle due to source {\it I} is $2.25^\circ

475: (m_{I,*}/20M_\odot)(b/1000{\rm AU})^{-1}(v_{\rm BN}/30{\rm

476: km\:s^{-1}})^{-2}$, where $b$ is the initial impact parameter and

477: $v_{\rm BN}$ is the velocity of BN relative to source {\it I}. A

478: direct trajectory from $\theta^1$~Ori~C's present position (ideally this

479: would be measured from $\theta^1$~Ori~C's position at the time of ejection)

480: to BN's position has a closest projected separation from source {\it

481: I}'s present position of 1.5\arcsec (about 600~AU). Thus an accurate

482: astrometric solution of this system presents us with the unique

483: opportunity of constraining the dynamical mass of source {\it I}, the

484: nearest massive protostar, in combination with the true (unprojected)

485: distance of closest approach. The true distance of closest approach is

486: important for evaluating the tidal effects of BN on source {\it I}'s

487: accretion disk, which are likely to have enhanced accretion to the

488: star (Ostriker 1995; Moeckel \& Bally 2006). Such enhanced accretion

489: is likely to have led to enhanced protostellar outflow activity, thus

490: explaining the $\sim 1000$~yr timescale of the ``explosive'' outflow

491: from this region (Allen \& Burton 1993; Tan 2004).

492: 

493: 

494: \section{Conclusions}

495: 

496: We have reviewed the latest evidence that BN was dynamically ejected

497: from the $\theta^1$~Ori~C binary, finding that $\theta^1$~Ori~C has all the

498: physical properties expected in this scenario. We showed that the

499: trajectory of BN is also consistent with this scenario, in contrast to

500: recent claims by G\'omez et al. (2008). We discussed how high

501: precision astrometry of $\theta^1$~Ori~C with SIM can yield information on

502: the pre-ejection velocity of the system and the size of any subsequent

503: deflections, in particular that of BN caused by close passage with

504: source {\it I}, the nearest massive protostar.

505: 

506: 

507: \acknowledgements JCT acknowledges support from NSF CAREER grant

508: AST-0645412 and a grant from NASA for SIM Science Studies.

509: 

510: 

511: \begin{references}

512: \reference{} Allen, D. A., \& Burton, M. G. 1993, Nature, 363, 54

513: \reference{} Bally, J., \& Zinnecker, H. 2005, AJ, 129, 2281

514: \reference{} Beuther, H., Churchwell, E. B., McKee, C. F., \& Tan, J. C. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, eds. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, (University of Arizona Press, Tucson), p.165

515: \reference{} Bonnell, I. A., \& Bate, M. R. 2006, \mnras, 370, 488

516: \reference{} Clarke, C. J., \& Bonnell, I. A. 2008, \mnras, 388, 1171

517: \reference{} F\~ur\'esz, G., Hartmann, L. W., Megeath, S. T., Szentgyorgyi, A. H., Hamden, E. T. 2008, \apj, 676, 1109

518: \reference{} Gezari, D. Y., Backman, D. E., \& Werner, M. W. 1998, \apj, 509, 283

519: \reference{} G\'omez, L., Rodriguez, L. F., Loinard, L., Lizano, S., Allen, C., Poveda, A., \& Menten K. M. 2008, ApJ, in press (arXiv:0805.3650)

520: \reference{} G\'omez, L., Rodriguez, L. F., Loinard, L., Poveda, A., Lizano, S., \& Allen, C. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1136

521: \reference{} Hillenbrand, L. A., \& Hartmann, L. W. 1998, \apj, 492, 540

522: \reference{} Jones, B. F., \& Walker, M. F. 1988, \aj, 95, 1755

523: \reference{} Kraus, S., Balega, Y.Y., Berger, J.-P. et al. 2007, \aap, 466, 649

524: \reference{} McKee, C. F. \& Tan, J. C. 2003, \apj, 585, 850

525: \reference{} Menten, K. M. \& Reid, M. J. 1995, \apj, 445, L157

526: \reference{} Menten, K. M., Reid, M. J., Forbrich, J., \& Brunthaler, A. 2007, \aap, 474, 515

527: \reference{} Moeckel, N. \& Bally, J. 2006, \apj, 653, 437

528: \reference{} Ostriker, E. C. 1994, \apj, 424, 292

529: \reference{} Patience, J., Zavala, R.T., Prato, L., Franz, O., Wasserman, L., Tycner, C., Hutter, D.J., \& Hummel, C.A. 2008, \apj, 674, L97

530: \reference{} Pflamm-Altenburg, J., \& Kroupa, P. 2006, \mnras, 373, 295

531: \reference{} Plambeck, R. L., Wright, M. C. H., Mundy, L. G., \& Looney, L. W. 1995, \apj, 455, L189

532: \reference{} Poveda, A., Ruiz, J., \& Allen, C. 1967, Bol. Obs. Tonantzintla Tacubaya, 4, 86

533: \reference{} Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Greenhill, L. J., \& Chandler, C. J. 2007, \apj, 664, 950

534: \reference{} Rodr\'iguez, L. F., Poveda, A., Lizano, S. \& Allen, C. 2005, ApJ, 627, L65

535: \reference{} Scoville, N., Kleinmann, S. G., Hall, D. N. B., \& Ridgway, S. T. 1983, \apj, 275,201

536: \reference{} Tan, J. C. 2004, ApJ, 607, L47

537: \reference{} Tan, J. C. 2008, in {\it Massive Star Formation: Observations Confront Theory}, ASP Conf. Ser. 387, eds. Beuther et al., (San Francisco: ASP), p346

538: \reference{} van Altena, W. F., Lee, J. T., Lee, J.-F., Lu, P. K., \& Upgren, A. R. 1988, \aj, 95, 1744

539: \reference{} Walker, M. F. 1983, \apj, 271, 642

540: \reference{} Zinnecker, H., \& Yorke, H. W. 2007, \araa, 45, 481

541: \end{references}

542: 

543: 

544: 

545: 

546: 

547: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------

548: \end{document}

549: 

550: