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

2: \documentclass{emulateapj}

3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

4: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

5: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

6: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

7: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

8: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

9: %% the \begin{document} command.

10: %%

11: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

12: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

13: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

14: %% for information.

15: 

16: \newcommand{\kms}{\,km\,s$^{-1}$}

17: \def\squig{\sim\!\!}

18: \newcommand{\Msun}{\mbox{\,$M_{\odot}$}}

19: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\mbox{\,$L_{\odot}$}}

20: 

21: 

22: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}

23: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

24:      \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}

25: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

26:      \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}

27: \font\smcap=cmcsc10

28: \def\caii{Ca\,{\smcap ii}}

29: 

30: \newcommand{\nmembers}{24}   % number of segue member stars

31: 

32: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

33: 

34: %\slugcomment{Draft 1/08}

35: 

36: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

37: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

38: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

39: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

40: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.  Running heads

41: %% will not print in the manuscript style.

42: 

43: \shorttitle{Spectroscopy of Segue\,1}

44: \shortauthors{Geha~et~al.}

45: 

46: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

47: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

48: 

49: \begin{document}

50: 

51: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

52: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

53: %% you desire.

54: 

55: \title{The Least Luminous Galaxy:  Spectroscopy of the Milky Way Satellite Segue\,1}

56: 

57: %

58: 

59: 

60: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

61: %% author and affiliation information.

62: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

63: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

64: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

65: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.

66: 

67: \author{Marla Geha\altaffilmark{1}}

68: \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomy Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT~06520.  marla.geha@yale.edu}

69: 

70: 

71: \author{Beth Willman\altaffilmark{2}}

72: \altaffiltext{2}{Haverford College, Department of Physics, 370 Lancaster Avenue, Haverford, PA 19041}

73: %\altaffiltext{1}{Clay Fellow.}

74: %\email{beth.willman@gmail.com}

75: 

76: \author{Joshua\ D.\ Simon\altaffilmark{3}}

77: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, 

78:        California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd.,

79:        MS 105-24, Pasadena, CA  91125}

80: 

81: 

82:      \author{Louis E.\ Strigari\altaffilmark{4,5}}

83:      \altaffiltext{4}{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics \&

84:        Cosmology, Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford,

85:        CA 94305}

86:      \altaffiltext{5}{Hubble Fellow}

87: 

88: 

89: \author{Evan N.\ Kirby\altaffilmark{6}}

90: \altaffiltext{6}{UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California,

91:     Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA~95064.}

92: 

93: \author{David R.\ Law\altaffilmark{3}}

94: 

95: \author{Jay Strader\altaffilmark{7}}

96: \altaffiltext{7}{Harvard-Smithsonian CfA, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02144}

97: 

98: 

99: 

100: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

101: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

102: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

103: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

104: %% editorial office after submission.

105: 

106: \begin{abstract}

107: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

108: 

109: We present Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopy of Segue\,1, an ultra-low

110: luminosity ($M_V = -1.5^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$) Milky Way satellite

111: companion. While the combined size and luminosity of Segue\,1 are

112: consistent with either a globular cluster or a dwarf galaxy, we

113: present spectroscopic evidence that this object is a dark

114: matter-dominated dwarf galaxy.  We identify \nmembers\ stars as

115: members of Segue\,1 with a mean heliocentric recession velocity of

116: $206 \pm 1.3$\kms. We measure an internal velocity dispersion of

117: $4.3\pm 1.2$\kms.  Under the assumption that these stars are

118: gravitationally bound and in dynamical equilibrium, we infer a total

119: mass of $4.5^{+4.7}_{-2.5} \times 10^5 M_{\odot}$ in the case where

120: mass-follow-light; using a two-component maximum likelihood model, we

121: determine a similar mass within the stellar radius of 50\,pc.  This

122: implies a mass-to-light ratio of ln$(M/L_V) = 7.2^{+1.1}_{-1.2}$ or

123: $M/L_V = 1320^{+2680}_{-940}$.  The error distribution of the

124: mass-to-light ratio is nearly log-normal, thus Segue\,1 is dark

125: matter-dominated at a high significance.  Although Segue\,1 spatially

126: overlaps the leading arm of the Sagittarius stream, its velocity is

127: 100\kms\ different than that predicted for recent Sagittarius tidal

128: debris at this position.  We cannot rule out the possibility that

129: Segue\,1 has been tidally disrupted, but do not find kinematic

130: evidence supporting tidal effects.  Using spectral synthesis modeling,

131: we derive a metallicity for the single red giant branch star in our

132: sample of [Fe/H] $= -3.3\pm0.2$\,dex.  Finally, we discuss the

133: prospects for detecting gamma-rays from annihilation of dark matter

134: particles and show that Segue\,1 is the most promising satellite for

135: indirect dark matter detection.  We conclude that Segue\,1 is the

136: least luminous of the ultra-faint galaxies recently discovered around

137: the Milky Way, and is thus the least luminous known galaxy.

138: 

139: 

140: \end{abstract}

141: 

142: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

143: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

144: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

145: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

146: 

147: \keywords{galaxies: dwarf ---

148:           galaxies: kinematics and dynamics ---

149:           galaxies: individual (Segue\,1) --- Local Group}

150: 

151: 

152: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

153: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

154: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

155: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

156: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

157: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

158: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

159: %% each reference.

160: 

161: \section{Introduction}\label{intro_sec}

162: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

163: 

164: The discovery of ``ultra-faint'' dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxies

165: around the Milky Way has revolutionized our understanding of dwarf

166: galaxies and their prevalence in the Universe.  These newly discovered

167: satellites, with total absolute magnitudes fainter than $M_V = -8$,

168: have all been found in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) via slight

169: statistical over-densities of individual stars

170: \citep{willman05b,willman05a,zucker06a,zucker06b,

171:   belokurov06a,belokurov06b,sakamoto06a, irwin07a, walsh07a}.  These

172: objects provide important clues to galaxy formation on the smallest

173: scales \citep{madau08a,ricotti08a} and substantially alleviate the

174: discrepancy between the observed mass function of Milky Way satellites

175: and that predicted by standard Lambda Cold Dark Matter models

176: \citep[][hereafter SG07]{tollerud08a,simon07a}.  \citet{strigari07b} note that the

177: ultra-faint dSphs have high central dark matter densities and are good

178: candidates for indirect dark matter detection via gamma-ray emission

179: by particle annihilation.  Future wide-field surveys that improve on

180: the sky coverage and photometric depth of the SDSS are likely to

181: discover many additional ultra-faint Milky Way satellites in the

182: coming years \citep{koposov07a,walsh08b}.

183: 

184: While the total luminosities of the ultra-faint satellites are

185: comparable to globular clusters, spectroscopic studies for the

186: majority of the newly discovered objects firmly suggest that these

187: objects are dark matter-dominated dwarf galaxies

188: \citep[][SG07]{kleyna05a,munoz06a,martin07a}. The mass-to-light ratios

189: for all the ultra-faint dSphs are $M/L_V >

190: 100$~M$_{\odot}$/L$_{\odot}$, with several systems approaching

191: 1000~M$_{\odot}$/L$_{\odot}$, assuming mass-follows-light.

192: \citet{strigari08a} loosened this constraint, confirming the high

193: mass-to-light ratios and finding a tight anti-correlation between

194: mass-to-light ratio and luminosity such that all the Milky Way dwarfs

195: are consistent with having a common dark matter mass of

196: $\sim10^7\Msun$ within their central 300\,pc. A theoretical

197: understanding of the physics that sets the mass-luminosity relation

198: will provide insight into the formation of galaxies at the smallest

199: scales.

200: 

201: Further evidence that the ultra-faint satellites are indeed galaxies

202: comes from metallicity measurements.  The ultra-faint satellites are

203: the most metal-poor known stellar systems ([Fe/H] $< -2$) and show

204: internal metallicity spreads up to 0.5~dex in several objects (SG07).

205: This is in contrast to Milky Way globular clusters which are, on

206: average, more metal-rich and show little to no internal metallicity

207: spread \citep[e.g.][]{Pritzl05a}.  In further contrast to globular

208: clusters, the ultra-faint dwarfs also follow the

209: luminosity-metallicity relationship established by brighter Milky Way

210: dwarf galaxies \citep{kirby08b}.  Thus, both the kinematics and

211: composition of the ultra-faint satellites strongly argue that these

212: objects are dark matter-dominated galaxies.

213: 

214: The combined size and luminosity of the spectroscopically confirmed

215: dSphs in the Milky Way are well separated from globular clusters: at a

216: given luminosity dwarf galaxies have larger sizes and are thus less

217: compact \citep{belokurov06b,martin08a}.  However, the three faintest

218: SDSS discoveries, Segue\,1, Willman~1 and Bootes~II, are all in a

219: region that overlaps with globular clusters.  Studying these extreme

220: systems should provide important insight to dSphs, and the difference

221: between dwarfs and star clusters, at all luminosities.  Of these three

222: objects, only Willman~1 has published kinematics \citep{martin07a}.

223: Because the systemic velocity of Willman~1 is similar to that of the

224: foreground Milky Way stars, possible contamination in the kinematic

225: sample make it difficult to assess whether this object is a dwarf or

226: globular cluster \citep[][Willman et al.~in prep]{siegel08a}.  Here,

227: we present the first spectroscopic study of an even lower luminosity

228: system, Segue\,1.  The systemic velocity of Segue\,1 is far removed

229: from the Milky Way foreground and thus should be a cleaner object to

230: study the properties of the least luminous ultra-faint systems.

231: 

232: Segue\,1 was discovered by \citet{belokurov06b} as an over-density of

233: resolved stars in the SDSS located at ($\alpha_{2000}, \delta_{2000})$

234: = (10:07:03, +16:04:25) = $(151.763^{\circ}, 16.074^{\circ}$).  Via

235: isochrone fitting, these authors estimate a distance of

236: $23\pm2$\,kpc and an absolute luminosity of $M_V \sim -3\pm0.6$.

237: \citet{martin08a} recently revised the luminosity of Segue\,1 to $M_V

238: = -1.5^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ using a more robust method to estimate flux in

239: systems with small numbers of observable stars.

240: While the possibility of tidal tails and/or tidal distortion of

241: Segue\,1 was found in the initial SDSS analysis, deeper imaging and

242: more thorough simulations suggest that these features can be explained

243: via Poisson scatter of the few bright stars in this system

244: \citep{martin08a}.  Segue\,1 has no detected gas content, with an

245: observed HI gas mass limit of less than $13\Msun$ \citep{putman08a}.

246: This limit is consistent with other dSphs around the Milky Way in

247: which any gas has been presumably removed via ram pressure stripping

248: or used up via tidally-induced star formation \citep{mayer06a}.

249: 

250: 

251: \citet{belokurov06b} note that Segue\,1 is spatially superimposed on

252: the leading arm of the Sagittarius stream.  Because it has a

253: similar luminosity and size as the most diffuse globular cluster, they

254: proposed that Segue\,1 is a globular cluster formerly associated with

255: the Sagittarius dSph.  Spectroscopy of member stars in Segue\,1 is

256: required to test this hypothesis and answer the crucial question of

257: whether or not this intrinsically faint stellar system is truly a

258: globular cluster (i.e.~a stellar system with a single stellar

259: population with no dark matter).  Here, we present Keck/DEIMOS

260: multi-object spectroscopy for individual stars in the vicinity of

261: Segue\,1, identifying \nmembers\ stars as members of Segue\,1.

262: 

263: This paper is organized as follows: in \S\,\ref{sec_data} we discuss

264: target selection and data reduction for our Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopy.

265: In \S\,\ref{sec_kin} we discuss the spectroscopic results

266: including estimates of the velocity dispersion, mass, mass-to-light

267: ratio and metallicity.  In \S\,\ref{sec_sgr}, we examine the spatial

268: and kinematic position of Segue\,1 relative to the Sagittarius stream.

269: In \S\,\ref{sec_gamma} we note that Segue\,1 may be a good target for

270: indirect detection of dark matter.  Finally, in \S\,\ref{sec_disc}, we

271: discuss Segue\,1 in context of the Milky Way dSph population.

272: 

273: Throughout the analysis, we use the photometric properties of Segue\,1

274: as derived by \citet{martin08a} of $M_V = -1.5^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ (i.e.\

275: the 1$\sigma$ magnitude limits are $M_V = -0.9$ and $-2.3$)

276: and $r_{\rm eff}=4.4'^{+1.2}_{-0.6} = 29^{+8}_{-5}$\,pc.  We also assume

277: a fixed reddening to Segue\,1 based on the \citet{schlegel98a} value

278: of E(B-V) = 0.032~mag.  We list these and other key parameters in

279: Table~1.

280: 

281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

282: % Figure:  CMD

283: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

284: \begin{figure*}[t!]

285: \epsscale{1.0}

286: \plotone{fig1.eps}

287: \caption{{\it Left:\/} Color-magnitude diagram of all stars (small

288:   black points) within $30'$ of the center of Segue\,1 from SDSS DR~6

289:   $g$- and $r$-band photometry.  The larger symbols indicate stars

290:   with measured Keck/DEIMOS velocities: solid blue circles fulfill our

291:   requirements for membership in Segue\,1, red asterisks are

292:   higher velocity stars and open squares are foreground Milky Way

293:   stars.  Two fiducial isochrone are shown shifted to the distance of

294:   Segue\,1: M92 ([Fe/H] =$-2.3$, solid line) and M3 ([Fe/H]=$-1.6$,

295:   dashed line).  {\it Right:\/} Spatial distribution of stars near

296:   Segue\,1.  The solid ellipse is the half-light radius of

297:   Segue\,1 as measured by \citet{martin08a}.\label{fig_cmd}}

298: \end{figure*}

299: 

300: 

301: 

302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

303: % Figure: Velocity

304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

305: \begin{figure*}[t!]

306: \plotone{fig2.eps}

307: \caption{{\it Left:\/} Keck/DEIMOS velocity histogram for all stars in

308:   our sample; velocities are corrected to the heliocentric frame.  We

309:   identify Segue\,1 as the velocity peak near $v=206$\kms.  Stars with

310:   less positive velocities are identified as foreground Milky Way, the

311:   four stars with $v\sim300$\kms\ are tentatively associated with the

312:   Sagittarius stream as discussed in \S\,\ref{ssec_highv}.  {\it

313:     Right:\/} Radial distance from the center of Segue\,1 plotted

314:   against heliocentric velocity.  Stars to the East of the galaxy

315:   center are plotted as triangles, stars to the West are plotted as

316:   squares.  We indicate the effective half-light radius ($r_{\rm

317:     eff}$), the mean systemic velocity of the system (black dashed

318:   line) and velocity dispersion (grey shaded region). \label{fig_velocity}}

319: \end{figure*}

320: 

321: 

322: 

323: 

324: 

325: 

326: 

327: \section{Data}\label{sec_data}

328: 

329: \subsection{Target Selection}\label{subsec_targets}

330: 

331: Targets were selected for spectroscopy based on $gri$ photometry of

332: Segue\,1 from the SDSS DR6 public database \citep{dr6}.  As discussed

333: in SG07, we set the target priorities to preferentially observe stars

334: with a high likelihood of being Segue\,1 members.  Using the

335: theoretical isochrones of \citet{clem08a} and \citet{girardi04a}, we

336: chose targets whose color and apparent magnitudes minimize the

337: distance from the best fitting Segue\,1 isochrone.  The highest

338: priority targets were those located within 0.1~mag of the RGB tracks,

339: or within 0.2~mag of the horizontal branch, with additional preference

340: being given to brighter stars (Figure~\ref{fig_cmd}).  Stars farther

341: from any of the fiducial sequences were classified as lower priority

342: targets.  We designed the slitmask so as to maximize the number of

343: high priority targets: a total of 59 targets were placed on the

344: Segue\,1 mask, 26 of which were in our highest priority category.

345: Slitmasks were created using the DEIMOS {\tt dsimulator} package in

346: IRAF.

347: 

348: 

349: \subsection{Spectroscopy and Data Reduction}\label{subsec_redux}

350: 

351: One multislit mask was observed for Segue\,1 using the Keck~II 10-m

352: telescope and the DEIMOS spectrograph \citep{faber03a} on the night of

353: November 12, 2007.  The mask was observed for a total of 5400~seconds

354: through the 1200~line~mm$^{-1}$ grating covering a wavelength region

355: $6400-9100~\mbox{\AA}$.  The spatial scale is $0.12''$~per pixel, the

356: spectral dispersion of this setup is $0.33~\mbox{\AA}$, and the

357: resulting spectral resolution is $1.37~\mbox{\AA}$ (FWHM). Slitlets

358: were $0.7''$ wide.  The minimum slit length was $5''$ to allow

359: adequate sky subtraction; the minimum spatial separation between slit

360: ends was $0.4''$ (three pixels).

361: 

362: Spectra were reduced using a modified version of the {\tt spec2d}

363: software pipeline (version~1.1.4) developed by the DEEP2 team at the

364: University of California-Berkeley for that survey. A detailed

365: description of the two-dimensional reductions can be found in SG07.

366: The final one-dimensional spectra are rebinned into logarithmic

367: wavelength bins with 15\,\kms\ per pixel.

368: 

369: 

370: 

371: \subsection{Radial Velocities and Error Estimates}\label{subsec_rvel}

372: 

373: Radial velocities were measured by cross-correlating the observed

374: science spectra with a set of high signal-to-noise stellar templates.

375: The method is the same as that described in SG07 and briefly repeated

376: here.  Stellar templates were observed with Keck/DEIMOS using the same

377: setup as described in \S\,\ref{subsec_redux} and covering a wide range

378: of stellar types (F8 to M8 giants, subgiants and dwarf stars) and

379: metallicities ([Fe/H] = $-2.12$ to $+0.11$~dex).  We calculate and

380: apply a telluric correction to each science spectrum by cross

381: correlating a hot stellar template with the night sky absorption lines

382: following the method in \citet{sohn06a}.  The telluric correction

383: accounts for the velocity error due to mis-centering the star within

384: the $0.7''$ slit caused by small mask rotations or astrometric errors.

385: We apply both a telluric and heliocentric correction to all velocities

386: presented in this paper.

387: 

388: 

389: The random component of the velocity error is calculated using a Monte

390: Carlo bootstrap method.  Noise is added to each pixel in the

391: one-dimensional science spectrum, we then recalculate the velocity and

392: telluric correction for 500 noise realizations.  The random error is

393: defined as the square root of the variance in the recovered mean

394: velocity in the Monte Carlo simulations.  The systematic contribution

395: to the velocity error was determined by SG07 to be 2.2\kms\ based on

396: repeated independent measurements of individual stars.  Since we are

397: using the same spectrograph setup and reduction methods, we assume the

398: systematic error contribution is constant across the two runs.  We add

399: the random and systematic errors in quadrature to arrive at the final

400: velocity error for each science measurement.  Radial velocities were

401: successfully measured for 49 of 59 extracted spectra.  The median

402: velocity error of these 49 stars is 3.6\kms\, similar to that of SG07.

403: The median velocity error of the 24 Segue\,1 members (see below) is

404: 5.2\kms\ since these stars are fainter than the sample average.  The

405: majority of spectra for which we could not measure a redshift did not

406: have sufficient signal-to-noise.  The fitted velocities were visually

407: inspected to ensure reliability.  The resulting velocities and

408: associated errors are listed in Table~2.

409: 

410: 

411: \section{Spectroscopic Observations of Segue 1} \label{sec_kin}

412: 

413: \subsection{Foreground Contamination and Membership Criteria} \label{ssec_members}

414: % lgal= 220.4782 *!pi/180.

415: % bgal =50.4259 * !pi/180.

416: 

417: In Figure~\ref{fig_velocity}, we identify Segue\,1 as the over-density

418: of stars with radial velocities near 206\kms.  We estimate possible

419: foreground contribution below and then discuss our criteria for

420: Segue\,1 membership, which we base only on velocity.

421: 

422: We expect minimal contamination from foreground Milky Way stars at the

423: position and velocity of Segue\,1. Segue\,1 lies at a Galactocentric

424: position of $(l,b) = (220.5^{\circ}, 50.4^{\circ})$.  According to the

425: Besancon starcount model\footnote{http://model.obs-besancon.fr} of the

426: Milky Way \citep{robin03a} at this Galactic position, the velocity

427: distribution of Milky Way foreground stars peaks at a heliocentric

428: velocity of 20\kms.  The Besancon models include stellar contributions

429: from the Milky Way thin and thick disk, spheroid and stellar halo.

430: The kinematic distribution of foreground stars is roughly approximated

431: by a Gaussian with FHWM of 35\kms, however the tails of the

432: distribution extend to significantly positive and negative velocities.

433: The percentage of Milky Way stars expected in the presumed velocity

434: span of Segue\,1, between $190 < v < 220$\kms, is 2.5\% of the total

435: distribution.  Thus, if we assume that all the stars with velocities

436: less than 100\kms\ are Milky Way foreground stars (a total of 20

437: stars, see Figure~\ref{fig_velocity}), we predict less than one

438: foreground star in the Segue\,1 velocity range.

439: 

440: As noted by \citet{belokurov06b}, Segue\,1 is superposed on the

441: leading arm of the Sagittarius stream, $\sim100$ degrees away from the

442: main body of the Sagittarius dSph.  Thus, a second possible source of

443: contamination in our Segue\,1 sample are stars associated with the

444: Sagittarius stream.  As discussed in \S\,\ref{sec_sgr}, the predicted

445: velocity of the leading stream at this position is $v

446: \sim -100$\,\kms, very far from the radial velocity of Segue\,1.

447: While both the trailing arm and possible older wraps of the

448: Sagittarius stream may be present at this position, both components

449: would have much wider velocity distributions than Segue\,1.  We

450: conclude that there is no contamination from Sagittarius stream stars

451: in the Segue\,1 velocity window.  Finally, there are four stars at

452: higher velocities ($v \sim 300$\kms) that do not appear to be

453: associated with Segue\,1 as a result of the 100\,\kms\ velocity

454: difference which we discuss in \S\,\ref{ssec_highv}.

455: 

456: 

457: Since the expected contamination from both foreground Milky Way stars

458: and the Sagittarius stream is low in the velocity region of Segue\,1,

459: our criteria for Segue\,1 membership is simple: we assign membership

460: based only on velocity.  Stars with radial velocities between $190 < v

461: < 220$\,\kms\ are considered members of Segue\,1.  This cut provides

462: \nmembers\ member stars.  The nearest non-members in our

463: spectroscopic sample are at $v = 155$\,\kms\ and $v = 281$\,\kms, so

464: different velocity cuts would identify the same set of members.

465: 

466: The color-magnitude distribution of kinematically-selected Segue\,1

467: members is shown in Figure~\ref{fig_cmd}.  We plot fiducial sequences

468: for the globular clusters \object{M92} ([Fe/H] = $-2.3$) and

469: \object{M3} ([Fe/H]=$-1.6$).  These ridgelines are based on those of

470: \citet{clem08a} in $g'-r'$, converted to $g-r$ using the

471: transformations of \citet{rider04a} and shifted to the distance of

472: Segue\,1 (23\,kpc).  These fiducials are well-matched to the kinematic

473: sample.  In particular, the spectra of the two bright blue stars

474: ($r\sim17.5$, $g-r \sim-0.1$) show strong broad absorption lines of

475: the Paschen series and narrow Ca II triplet lines consistent with

476: being horizontal branch stars.  The position of these two stars is

477: also well matched to the metal-poor horizontal branch isochrones at

478: the distance of Segue\,1.

479: 

480: 

481: 

482: 

483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

484: % Figure:  Likelihood

485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

486: \begin{figure}

487: \epsscale{0.9}

488: \plotone{fig3.eps}

489: \caption{Likelihood distributions for the mass of Segue\,1 enclosed

490:   within 50\,pc ({\it top}) and 300\,pc ({\it bottom}) determined using

491:   a two-component model as described in \S\,\ref{ssec_mass} and

492:   \citet{strigari08a}.  The arrow on the top plot indicates the mass

493:   of Segue\,1 assuming mass-follows-light. Dotted lines show the

494:   best-fitting two-component model mass and $1-\sigma$

495:   errors.\label{fig_maxlike}}

496: \end{figure}

497: 

498: 

499: 

500: \subsection{Velocity Dispersion}\label{ssec_vdisp}

501: 

502: We measure the mean velocity and velocity dispersion of Segue\,1 using

503: the maximum-likelihood method described by \citet{walker06a}.  This

504: method assumes that the observed velocity dispersion is the sum of the

505: intrinsic galaxy dispersion and the dispersion produced by measurement

506: errors.  Fitting the full Segue\,1 sample based on the \nmembers\

507: member stars identified above, we find a mean heliocentric velocity of

508: $206.4\pm1.3$\kms\ and a velocity dispersion of $4.3\pm1.2$\kms

509: (Figure~\ref{fig_velocity}).  We do not find evidence for rotation in

510: this system, however, given the small numbers of stars we cannot rule

511: out rotation velocities on the same order as the velocity dispersion.

512: We test this by adding a sinusoidal term to the systemic velocity,

513: varying the amplitude and scale radius \citep{strigari08a}. The most

514: likely value for the rotation amplitude is zero, with an upper

515: 1-$\sigma$ limit of 5\kms. While this test justifies the mass modeling

516: we use with no streaming motion in the velocities, larger kinematic

517: data sets and smaller velocity uncertainties are necessary to test

518: more conclusively for streaming motion Segue\,1.  

519: 

520: The grey shaded region in right panel of Figure~\ref{fig_velocity}

521: indicates the $1\sigma$ width of the Segue\,1 velocity distribution.

522: We note that all the member stars lie within $2.5\sigma$ of the

523: systemic Segue\,1 velocity.  The next nearest star in velocity space

524: is over $10\sigma$ away.  We interpret this cold distribution as

525: evidence that there are no stars {\it currently} in the process of

526: being tidally stripped from Segue\,1 \citep{klimentowski07a}.  We note

527: here and in \S\,\ref{ssec_tides}, however, that the lack of outliers

528: is not sufficient to prove that tidal processes are not affecting our

529: results \citep[e.g.,][]{munoz08a}.  This interpretation also does not

530: mean that stars have not been previously stripped from Segue\,1, and

531: still allows for the possibility that tidal interactions are currently

532: on-going in the dark matter component of this object.  We discuss this

533: further in \S\,\ref{ssec_tides}.

534: 

535: 

536: \subsection{Mass and Mass-to-Light Ratio}\label{ssec_mass}

537: 

538: We calculate the dynamical mass of Segue\,1 using two different

539: methods.  In both cases, we assume that Segue~1 is a relaxed,

540: self-gravitating, spherically-symmetric system with no rotational

541: motion.  We presently ignore any effects on the mass estimates due to

542: tidal interactions between Segue\,1 and the Milky Way, leaving that

543: discussion to \S\,\ref{ssec_tides}.  We first assume the simplest

544: possible configuration: an isotropic sphere in which

545: mass-follows-light.  Further assuming that the density is described as

546: a King model and is in virial equilibrium, \citet{illingworth76a}

547: showed that the total mass is then $M = 167 \beta r_{c}

548: \sigma^{2}$ where $\beta$ is a parameter that depends on the

549: concentration of the system and is generally assumed to be 8 for dSphs

550: \citep{mateo98a}, $r_{c}$ is the \citet{king66a} profile core radius,

551: and $\sigma$ is the observed average velocity dispersion.  We convert

552: the measured half-light radius of Segue\,1 to King core radius as $r_c

553: = 0.64* r_{\rm eff} = 18.6^{+5}_{-3}$\,pc.  Using this method, we

554: estimate the total mass of Segue\,1 to be $4.5^{+4.7}_{-2.5} \times

555: 10^5$\,\Msun.

556: 

557: Our second method to calculate the mass loosens the constraint that

558: mass-follows-light and uses the individual stellar velocity

559: measurements (in contrast to the velocity dispersion averaged over the

560: projected radius as above). The method is described in Strigari et

561: al.~(2008a).  Similar to the mass-follows-light method, this model

562: assumes spherical symmetry and dynamical equilibrium, i.e.~that the

563: kinematic tracer population is related to the mass distribution via

564: the Jeans Equation.  We assume that the light profile follows the

565: observed Plummer profile with effective radius $r_{\rm eff} = 29$\,pc,

566: and that the dark matter follows a five-parameter density profile

567: characterized by a scale density, a scale radius, an asymptotic inner

568: slope, an asymptotic outer slope, and a parameter governing the

569: transition between these two slopes.  The dark matter density profile

570: allows for both flat central density cores and steep central density

571: cusps, including the CDM-favored NFW-like $r^{-1}$ central cusps. We

572: also allow for a radially-varying stellar velocity anisotropy profile.

573: We then marginalize over these five free parameters, and can estimate

574: the mass at any given radius.  Though the data do not constrain any of

575: these parameters separately, the total dynamical mass within the

576: stellar extent of 50\,pc is relatively well-constrained.  Using this

577: model, we find the mass within 50\,pc to be $8.7_{-5.2}^{+13} \times

578: 10^5$M$_\odot$.  We note that the likelihood distribution of this

579: quantity, shown in Figure~\ref{fig_maxlike}, is nearly log-normal; the mass is

580: greater than $5\times10^4$\Msun with 3-$\sigma$ confidence.  In

581: comparison, the total stellar mass is merely 340\Lsun.

582: 

583: 

584: %1sigma: 8.65_{5.31}^{1.35} x 10^5 Msun

585: %2sigma: 8.65_{7.37}^{13.5} x 10^5 Msun

586: %3sigma: 8.65_{8.12}^{125.1} x 10^5 Msun.

587: 

588: 

589: The two masses calculated above agree within errors. In the

590: mass-follows-light method, the majority of dark matter mass in the

591: galaxy resides within the stellar radius, while the second

592: method leaves open the possibility that the majority of the mass lies

593: {\em outside} the observed light distribution. However, determining

594: the total galaxy mass requires knowledge of the total radial extent of

595: the dark matter halo and the profile shape beyond the last observed

596: point.  This is clearly difficult to determine observationally and

597: strongly depends on the unknown orbital history of the galaxy.  We can

598: only estimate the instantaneous tidal radius of the galaxy, which

599: ranges from a few ten to a few hundred parsecs depending on

600: assumptions detailed in \S\,\ref{sssec_tides}.  If the tidal radius is

601: large, then it is plausible that the majority of mass lies outside the

602: stellar distribution.  

603: 

604: Extrapolating the second estimate of mass to a

605: radius of 300\,pc, we find a total dynamical mass of $10^7$ M$_\odot$,

606: which, remarkably, is consistent with the common mass scale of all

607: Milky Way dSphs as seen in Figure~\ref{fig_corr} \citep{strigari08a}.

608: This common mass scale has been noted in previous studies

609: \citep{mateo93a, gilmore07a}; we discuss this further in

610: \S\,\ref{sec_disc}.  If the stellar component of Segue\,1 is embedded

611: in a $10^7$\Msun\ dark matter halo, we would expect the luminous

612: component to have experienced very little tidal disruption despite its

613: current proximity to the Galaxy.

614: 

615: Regardless of which estimator is used above, the observed mass of

616: Segue\,1 is {\it significantly} larger than expected if all its mass

617: were due to a stellar-only component.  Since Segue\,1 contains little

618: to no HI gas \citep{putman08a}, the stellar mass likely dominates the

619: total baryonic mass.  In the absence of non-baryonic dark matter, we

620: expect the mass-to-light ratio of Segue\,1 to be $M/L_V\sim 3$,

621: accounting for stellar remnants in an old stellar population

622: \citep{maraston05a}.  Assuming this mass-to-light ratio, the stellar

623: mass of Segue\,1 is $\sim 1\times 10^3$\Msun, translating into an

624: expected velocity dispersion of merely $0.4$\kms.  This is more than

625: 3-$\sigma$ below the measured dispersion of Segue\,1 and thus argues

626: strongly for the presence of dark matter.

627: 

628: Finally, we calculate the $V$-band mass-to-light ($M/L_V$) ratio

629: within the observed radius.  Combining the absolute luminosity of

630: Segue\,1 ($M_V = -1.5^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$) with the mass from the first

631: method above (assuming mass-follows-light), we calculate a

632: mass-to-light ratio of ln$(M/L_V) = 7.2^{+1.1}_{-1.2}$ ($M/L_V =

633: 1320^{+2684}_{-936}$), and in the second two-component method we

634: calculate ln$(M/L_V) = 7.8^{+0.5}_{-1.3}$ ($M/L_V =

635: 2440^{+1580}_{-1775}$).  In both cases, the error distribution is

636: asymmetric and the mass-to-light ratio is well in excess of that

637: predicted from the stellar mass alone.  The two-component model ratios

638: suggests a dark matter-dominated galaxy with a 6$-\sigma$

639: significance.  If the luminous components of dSphs do indeed reside in

640: common mass dark matter halos, we would predict the highest M/L ratios

641: in the least luminous dSphs (see middle panel Figure~\ref{fig_corr}).

642: Since Segue\,1 is the least luminous of the recently discovered

643: ultra-faint Milky Way satellites, this remarkably high M/L is expected

644: in this model.  Understanding the processes that lead to this high M/L

645: will be a future challenge to galaxy formation models.

646: 

647: 

648: 

649: \subsection{Possible Caveats on the Mass of Segue 1}\label{ssec_tides}

650: 

651: The remarkably high mass-to-light ratio of Segue\,1 rests on our

652: interpretation that the measured stellar velocities faithfully trace

653: the gravitational potential.  Here we discuss two possibilities that

654: might affect this assumption.  First is the presence of unresolved

655: binary stars inflating our measured velocity dispersion.  The second

656: is tidal interactions with the Milky Way affecting the kinematics.

657: Both issues are difficult to quantify without further observations,

658: but are worthwhile considering here.

659: 

660: \subsubsection{The Effects of Binary Stars}\label{sssec_binaries}

661: 

662: If a high percentage of our Segue\,1 stellar members are in fact

663: unresolved binary star systems, the measured velocity dispersion may

664: be inflated due to their orbital motion.  The severity of this effect

665: depends on the mass ratio of individual systems, with equal mass

666: binaries contributing most to the velocity bias.  The likely presence

667: of binaries in our kinematics sample is difficult to estimate

668: empirically without repeated velocity measurements.

669: \citet{olszewski96a} simulate the effects of binaries on the velocity

670: dispersions of dSph with datasets somewhat similar to that of

671: Segue\,1.  Assuming a solar neighborhood binary fraction, they suggest

672: that the velocity dispersion due to binaries alone is on the order

673: $\sim1.5$\,\kms.  Thus, while the overall dispersion may be inflated

674: by binaries, they cannot explain away the strong evidence of dark

675: matter.  Because the true binary fraction in Segue\,1 may be very

676: different than that of the solar neighborhood, we do not fold this

677: systematic error into our mass estimates.  Additional observations and

678: improved simulations will allow us to better quantify the effects of

679: binaries on our results.

680: 

681: \subsubsection{The Effects of Tidal Interactions}\label{sssec_tides}

682: 

683: It is likely that Segue\,1 has been affected by tidal interactions

684: with the Galaxy.  Segue\,1 lies at a distance of 23\,kpc from the Sun,

685: or d$_{\rm GC-Seg1}=28$\,kpc from the Galactic Center (GC) assuming a

686: GC-Sun distance of 8.5\,kpc.  We estimate the instantaneous tidal

687: radius for Segue\,1 by first approximating both the Milky Way and

688: Segue\,1 as point masses.  We assume a enclosed Milky Way mass of

689: $3\times 10^{11}\Msun$, corresponding to a circular velocity of

690: 210\kms\ at 28\,kpc.  This is consistent with the Milky Way model used

691: in \S\,\ref{sec_sgr} and \citet{law05a}.  Using the first estimate for

692: the mass of Segue\,1 in \S\,\ref{ssec_mass}, we determine a tidal

693: radius of $r_{\rm t}= (M_{\rm Seg1}/M_{\rm MW})^{(1/2)} d_{\rm

694:   GC-Seg1} = 33$\,pc.  Assuming that Segue\,1 is embedded in an

695: extended dark matter halo (using mass from the second method above at

696: 300\,pc), the tidal radius increases to $r_{\rm t}=160$\,pc.  In the

697: first case, the luminous matter extends beyond the tidal radius and we

698: would expect to see evidence for unbound stars in our kinematic

699: sample, in the second case we would expect our observations to be well

700: within the bound radius.  However, this calculation does not account

701: for the fact that Segue\,1 is orbiting the Milky Way.  When

702: calculating the tidal radius in the reference frame of the MW-Segue\,1

703: system, stars in Segue\,1 will also feel centrifugal and coriolis

704: forces in this rotating reference frame.  If we include these forces,

705: the tidal radius (also called the Jacobi or Roche radius, Binney \&

706: Tremaine (2008), Eqn.\,8.91) is then $r_{\rm t}= (M_{\rm

707:   Seg1}/3*M_{\rm MW})^{1/3}d_{\rm GC-Seg1}$.  The tidal radius then

708: increase to 220 and 615\,pc for the first and second cases,

709: respectively.  These are of course estimates of the {\it

710:   instantaneous} tidal radius: if Segue\,1 is on an elliptical orbit

711: the tidal radius may have been much different in the past.

712: 

713: If some, or all, of the stars associated with Segue\,1 are tidally

714: disrupting (unbound), then the measured velocities likely provide an

715: inflated estimate of the mass \citep{klimentowski07a}.  In the extreme

716: case that Segue\,1 is completely unbound, its mass could be as low as

717: the stellar component alone ($10^3$\Msun).  However, the fact that the

718: luminosity profile of Segue\,1 is centrally concentrated suggests that

719: this object is not completely unbound.  The crossing time of Segue\,1

720: (assuming $r_{\rm eff} = 30$\,pc and a velocity dispersion of 4.3\kms)

721: is $10^7$\,years.  The travel time along the orbit of Segue\,1 in

722: $10^7$ years is roughly 2\,kpc assuming a circular orbital speed of

723: 200 \kms.  Thus, we would naively expected an unbound version of

724: Segue\,1 reside only a few kpc away from its disruption site before

725: quickly dissipating, making this extreme scenario unlikely.  Detailed

726: dynamical modeling appropriate to this system and a knowledge of

727: Segue\,1's orbital history is required to properly determine the

728: degree of tidal interactions and disruption in this system.  Our mass

729: estimates presented in this paper explicitly assume that the

730: kinematics of Segue\,1 are not affected by tides.

731: 

732: 

733: To determine the true orbit of Segue\,1, we need to know its

734: transverse motion.  The heliocentric velocity of Segue\,1 is

735: $v=206$\kms\ and the velocity relative to the Galactic Standard of

736: Rest\footnote{To compute velocities in the Galactic standard of rest

737:   (GSR) frame, we assume the solar peculiar velocity is $(U,V,W) =

738:   (9,12,7)$ km s$ ^{-1}$ relative to the local standard of rest, for

739:   which we adopt a rotation velocity of 220 km s$^{-1}$.}  (GSR) is

740: $v_{\rm GSR}=114$\kms.  We can rule out a circular orbit: in the Milky

741: Way model discussed in \S\,\ref{sec_sgr}, the maximum projected GSR

742: velocity for a circular orbit is $v_{\rm GSR, circ} = 55$\kms at the

743: distance of Segue\,1.  If the transverse motion of Segue\,1 is similar

744: to or less than that of the measured radial motion, then Segue\,1 was

745: closer to the Galactic Plane in the recent past.  However, there is no

746: clear evidence to suggest tidal stripping is currently affecting the

747: luminous component.  We do not see velocity outliers in our kinematic

748: sample (which might indicate that these stars are in the process of

749: being stripped), nor other clear evidence of on-going tidal disruption

750: (e.g.~photometric evidence of tidal tails or tidally-induced

751: rotation).  While the absence of these features cannot be used as

752: proof that tidal stripping is not on-going \citep{munoz08a}, it is

753: consistent with our assumption that tidal stripping is not currently

754: affecting the luminous component.  An estimate of the proper motion of

755: Segue\,1 is needed to constrain the orbital history of this object.

756: 

757: 

758: 

759: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

760: % Figure:  spectra

761: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

762: \begin{figure*}[t!]

763: %\epsscale{0.9}

764: \plotone{fig4.eps}

765: \caption{Keck/DEIMOS spectrum for the Red Giant Branch star member of

766:   Segue\,1.  This star has a measured metallicity of [Fe/H] = $-3.3

767:   \pm 0.2$\,dex as determined via spectral synthesis \citep{kirby08a}.  The model

768:   spectrum is shown in red. The cores of the \ion{Ca}{2} triplet lines

769:   are not well-modeled because they form out of local thermodynamic

770:   equilibrium and do not play any role in the

771:   metallicity determination. Inset is a zoom-in of a region near the

772:   Ca II C-line.  The red [Fe/H] model is compared to a more metal-rich model

773:   ([Fe/H] = $-2.0$, blue line) with the same atmospheric parameters.  The

774:   observed spectrum shows no evidence for absorption at

775:   8689~$\mbox{\AA}$, even though a star as metal-poor as [Fe/H] =

776:   $-2.0$ would display this line.\label{fig_spectra}}

777: \end{figure*}

778: 

779: \subsection{Metallicity}\label{ssec_metal}

780: 

781: 

782: We estimate the spectroscopic metallicity of individual stars in our

783: Segue\,1 sample via spectral synthesis modeling \citep{kirby08a}.  The

784: method compares the observed spectrum to a grid of synthetic spectra

785: covering a range of effective temperature, surface gravity and

786: composition.  We estimate effective temperature and surface gravity

787: for each star based on the Johnson-Cousins $VI$ magnitude which we

788: determine by transforming the SDSS $gri$ magnitudes \citep{chonis08a}.

789: The results are unaffected by using alternative photometric methods to

790: determine these parameters.  The best matching composition is found by

791: minimizing residuals between the observed spectrum and a smoothed

792: synthetic spectrum matched to the DEIMOS spectral resolution.  Our

793: method has been tested against high resolution Keck/HIRES abundances

794: for six RGB stars in the ultra-faint dSphs of SG07 \citep{kirby08b}.

795: This comparison yields precisions better than 0.25\,dex for DEIMOS

796: spectra with signal-to-noise ratios (S/N) greater than $\mathrm{S/N} >

797: 20~\mbox{\AA}^{-1}$.  Although the method can theoretically be applied

798: to all types of stars, it has not yet been tested against

799: high-resolution spectroscopic abundances for horizontal branch or main

800: sequence stars.

801: 

802: Our kinematic sample contains a single RGB star ($r=18.4$).  The above

803: method estimates its metallicity to be [Fe/H] = $-3.3\pm0.2$\,dex.

804: The effective temperature and surface gravity used to determine the

805: metallicity of this star are $T_{\rm eff}=5191$\,K and $\log g =

806: 2.76$, with estimated systematic errors of 150\,K and 0.12\,dex,

807: respectively.  The derived metallicity is much more sensitive to

808: $T_{\rm eff}$ than $\log g$; \citet{kirby08a} estimate that a 150\,K

809: change in $T_{\rm eff}$ incurs an error on [Fe/H] of less than

810: 0.15\,dex.  While DEIMOS spectra contain some information about

811: $\alpha$-element abundances, the errors we estimate on this quantity

812: are large.  The [Fe/H] value is unchanged whether or not we mask out

813: absorption lines due to the $\alpha$-elements.

814: 

815: 

816: A small portion of the observed Segue\,1 RGB star spectrum and synthetic

817: spectra are shown in Figure~\ref{fig_spectra}.  At this metallicity,

818: the strong absorption lines of \ion{Ca}{2} are clearly visible, but

819: weaker Fe lines are not.  In the inset to Figure~\ref{fig_spectra}, we

820: compare a small region of the observed spectrum to models at [Fe/H] =

821: $-3.3$ and $-2.0$ with the same temperature and surface gravity.  For

822: a star with these parameters, the strongest Fe line in the DEIMOS

823: spectral range is \ion{Fe}{1}~8689.  The observed spectrum in

824: Figure~\ref{fig_spectra} shows no evidence for absorption at

825: 8689~$\mbox{\AA}$, even though a more metal-rich star would display

826: this line.

827: 

828: 

829: At red wavelengths, metallicity is often estimated via the \ion{Ca}{2}

830: triplet absorption lines \citep[e.g.][SG07]{helmi06a}.  However,

831: \citet{kirby08b}, \citet{koch08a} and others note that current

832: implementations of this method fail for metallicities below

833: [Fe/H]$\sim -2.5$.  The \ion{Ca}{2} triplet method is based an

834: empirical calibration of Galactic globular clusters and is not

835: calibrated for metallicities below [Fe/H] $\le -2.4$

836: \citep{rutledge97a}.  The metallicities in the ultra-faint dSph are

837: below this limit.  We therefore do not use this method and strongly

838: caution the use of this relationship for very low metallicity systems.

839: The remaining analysis is based on the results from the spectral

840: synthesis method above.

841: 

842: While other stars in our kinematic sample have sufficient

843: signal-to-noise to measure metallicity, [Fe/H] estimates for the

844: remainder of the sample are less reliable.  The two horizontal branch

845: stars seen in Figure~\ref{fig_cmd} are too hot to display strong metal

846: absorption and what metal lines exist are overwhelmed by the Paschen

847: series.  The main sequence stellar spectra are more suitable for

848: metallicity measurement, but have much lower signal-to-noise as

849: compared to the RGB star above and higher surface gravities.  The

850: synthesis method has also not yet been tested for stars with $\log g >

851: 3.3$.  The main sequence stars with adequate S/N to measure a

852: metallicity have surface gravities $3.5 < \log g < 4.3$.  The average

853: metallicity for these thirteen main sequence stars is [Fe/H] =

854: $-1.8\pm 0.1$\,dex, with individual measurements ranging from $-1.5$

855: to $-2.8$.  This average is significantly more metal-rich than above

856: and suggests that the mean metallicity of Segue\,1 may be higher than

857: that of the single RGB star.  These results also suggest that Segue\,1

858: has a significant internal metallicity spread.  In support of this

859: spread, we note that the fiducial isochrones in the color-magnitude

860: diagram of Figure~\ref{fig_cmd} cannot simultaneously fit the RGB and

861: main sequence.  While the horizontal branch and main sequence turn-off

862: are well fit in this figure, the single RGB star is slightly too blue,

863: suggesting it is more metal-poor than the main sequence, consistent with

864: our spectroscopically measured metallicity.  These results, however,

865: should be approached with caution.  While there are no obvious reasons

866: the main sequence metallicities should be biased, we remain

867: aware that the spectral synthesis code has not been tested in this

868: regime.  Pending more reliable confirmation, we take the metallicity

869: of the RGB star to be representative of Segue\,1.

870: 

871: 

872: Kirby et al.\ (2008b) demonstrate that the luminosity-metallicity

873: relationship is log-linear for Milky Way dwarf galaxies across nearly

874: four decades in luminosities (see Figure~\ref{fig_corr} and

875: \S\,\ref{sec_disc}).  Given the luminosity of Segue\,1 ($M_V=-1.5, L_V

876: = 340\Lsun$), the predicted metallicity based on this relationship is

877: [Fe/H] = $-2.8\pm0.2$.  While our metallicity estimate of the single

878: RGB star in our Segue\,1 sample is more metal-poor than this

879: prediction, the main sequence metallicity is more metal-rich.  The

880: average of these two metallicities is closer to the predicted value.

881: Additional observations are required to securely determine whether or

882: not Segue\,1 lies on the luminosity-metallicity relationship, and in

883: Figure~\ref{fig_corr} we assume that the average metallicity is equal

884: to that of the RGB star.  Quantifying the mean metallicity of Segue\,1

885: and the amount of internal metallicity spread is crucial to

886: interpreting the formation history of Segue\,1.  If this object does

887: indeed lie on the luminosity-metallicity relationship and has a

888: significant internal metallicity spread, this is further evidence for

889: that Segue\,1 formed via galaxy, rather than globular cluster,

890: formation processes.

891: 

892: 

893: \section{Segue\,1, Distinct from the Sagittarius Stream}\label{sec_sgr}

894: 

895: %[need to add info on distance]

896: 

897: Segue\,1 is spatially super-imposed on the leading arm of the

898: Sagittarius (Sgr) stream.  This placement and its tiny size led

899: \citet{belokurov06b} to identify it as a possible globular cluster

900: formerly associated with the Sgr dSph.  Six other globular clusters

901: have been associated with the Sgr stream \citep{bellazzini03a,

902:   casetti-dinescu07a, carraro07a}.  While our measured

903: velocity dispersion and inferred M/L ratio of Segue\,1 suggest that it

904: is not a globular cluster, it is still possible that it could have

905: been a dwarf satellite of Sgr that has been captured by the Milky Way.

906: We now investigate whether or not Segue\,1 could be kinematically

907: associated with the Sgr Stream.

908: 

909: \citet{majewski03a} defined a longitudinal coordinate system,

910: $\Lambda_{\odot}$, in which the center of the Sgr dSph lies at

911: $\Lambda_{\odot}=0$.  In this system, Segue\,1 is roughly

912: 130$^{\circ}$ away from the main body of the Sgr dSph at

913: $\Lambda_{\odot} = 224.5^{\circ}$ (Figure~\ref{sgr.fig}).  Unlike the

914: region near the Sgr dSph or the trailing stream of recent tidal debris

915: ($\Lambda_{\odot} \sim 0 - 100^{\circ}$), the kinematics of the stream

916: in the region near Segue\,1 are not well determined observationally.

917: We therefore compare our data to numerical N-body models in order

918: to determine whether Segue\, may be kinematically as well as spatially

919: associated with Sgr tidal debris.

920: 

921: 

922: \begin{figure*}

923: \plottwo{fig5a.eps}{fig5b.eps}

924: \caption{N-body model debris (colored points) from the Sgr dSph is

925:   plotted as a function of ({\it left}) sky coordinates and ({\it

926:     right}) line-of-sight velocity (relative to the GSR) as a function

927:   of orbital longitude $\Lambda_{\odot}$ \citep{majewski03a}.

928:   Grey/cyan points represent debris lost from Sgr during the last 5

929:   Gyr and magenta/green points are debris lost more than 5 Gyr ago in

930:   the leading/trailing tidal tails respectively.  Overplotted is the

931:   orbit of the Sgr dwarf core (black line) shown as a solid/dashed

932:   line for leading/trailing portions of the orbit respectively.

933:   Red/blue lines respectively represent the orbits of the $q = 0.9$

934:    and 1.25 and models of \citet{law05a} for comparison.  The

935:   location of the Segue\,1 field is indicated by a square in the left

936:   panel, and the velocity of the Segue I dwarf (triangle) and

937:   high-velocity feature (circle) are indicated in the right hand

938:   panel.  The error bars on the high-velocity feature indicate the

939:   1$\sigma$ spread about the mean value of stars in the feature.}

940: \label{sgr.fig}

941: \end{figure*}

942: 

943: 

944: 

945: Our model of the Sgr stream is similar in many respects to the $q =

946: 1.0$ model (i.e.,~that in which the Galactic dark halo potential is

947: spherical) described by \citet{law05a}, with some modifications made

948: in order to simultaneously match both the trailing arm M-giant

949: velocities \citep{majewski04a} and the newly observed SDSS leading arm

950: bifurcation \citep{belokurov06c}.  In brief, the Galactic halo

951: flattening in this model is mildly prolate ($q = 1.05$), and the model

952: Sgr dwarf has an initial mass of $10^{8} M_{\odot}$, a scale length of

953: 350\,pc, and has been orbiting in a static Galactic potential for

954: $\sim 9$ Gyr.  We refer the reader to \citet{law05a} for a more

955: thorough discussion of the N-body modeling technique.

956: 

957: Figure~\ref{sgr.fig} (left panel) illustrates the previously noted

958: spatial alignment of the Segue\,1 field with the leading Sgr stream

959: (i.e. the `A' and `C' streams of \citet{Fellhauer06a}).  As

960: demonstrated in the right hand panel, however, the velocity relative to

961: the GSR of Segue\,1 ($v_{\rm Seg1, GSR} = 114$ km s$^{-1}$) is wildly

962: discrepant with the leading tidal stream at the corresponding angular

963: position ($\sim -250$ km s$^{-1}$, grey/magenta points).  Instead,

964: Segue\,1 appears to be more consistent in velocity with the {\it

965:   trailing} stream, from which it is offset by $\sim$ 15$^{\circ}$

966: ($\sim 6$\,kpc at the distance of Segue\,1).  {\it Given these

967:   conflicting data, we conclude that Segue\,1 is not physically

968:   associated with either stream.}

969: 

970: We note for completeness however that Segue\,1 is consistent in both

971: angular coordinates and radial velocity with an extremely old segment

972: of leading arm tidal debris (released from Sgr $\sim 7-8$ Gyr ago)

973: which has been wrapped roughly 520$^{\circ}$ around the Milky Way from

974: the Sgr core (i.e. the segment of magenta debris at $\Lambda_{\odot}

975: \sim 220^{\circ}$ and $V_{\rm LOS,GSR} \sim 100$ km s$^{-1}$).

976: However, conclusive observational evidence for the existence of such

977: old, multiply-wrapped tidal debris from Sgr has not yet been

978: established.  Our models therefore leave open the possibility that

979: Segue\,1 was initially associated with the Sgr dSph, but was removed

980: very early in the tidal interactions between Sgr and the Milky Way.

981: Previous claims of associated cluster systems

982: \citep[e.g.~][]{bellazzini03a,casetti-dinescu07a} have focused only on

983: relatively recent debris.

984: 

985: There is of course still considerable uncertainty in the `best' model

986: for Sgr.  Only models with strongly prolate ($q=1.25$) halos produce

987: streams that match the leading arm M-giant velocities \citep{law05a},

988: while models with oblate halos ($q = 0.9$) best match the observed

989: precession of the M-giant orbital plane \citep{johnston05a}.  In

990: contrast, a near spherical model is required in order to match the

991: bifurcated stream observed in the SDSS \citep{belokurov06c}, as is an

992: extremely low satellite mass ($10^8 M_{\odot}$) which in turn produces

993: streams too dynamically cold to reproduce the observed dispersion

994: among the M-giant velocities \citep{law05a}.  In Figure~\ref{sgr.fig} we

995: demonstrate the behavior of Sgr debris in oblate, near-spherical, and

996: prolate Galactic dark halo potentials via point-particle orbital

997: tracks (red, black, and blue lines respectively).  While debris from

998: an N-body satellite is not perfectly traced by the orbit of the

999: satellite core, this orbital track gives a good sense of the behavior

1000: of the debris (note how the black line roughly tracks the colored

1001: points) and indicates that it is not possible to construct a model in

1002: which leading tidal debris can match the observed velocity of

1003: Segue\,1.  Similarly, for no model are trailing Sgr debris spatially

1004: coincident with Segue\,1 while simultaneously reproducing the trend of

1005: trailing M-giant velocities observed by \citet{majewski04a}.  While

1006: puzzles obviously remain, these uncertainties do not affect our

1007: conclusion that Segue\,1 cannot be associated with {\it recent} Sgr

1008: debris.

1009: 

1010: \subsection{Higher Velocity Stars:  An Old Piece of the Sagittarius Stream?}\label{ssec_highv}

1011: 

1012: There are four stars in our kinematic sample with $v\sim300$\kms, or

1013: $v_{\rm GSR} \sim 200$\kms (Figure~\ref{fig_velocity}).  This is

1014: unusual in that standard Milky Way models predict that such high velocity

1015: stars are extremely rare \citep[e.g.][]{robin03a}.  These four stars

1016: have sufficiently different velocities ($\Delta v = 30$\kms) that they

1017: are not gravitational bound to each other; however, given their

1018: spatial and kinematic proximity they could plausibly be associated

1019: with a single stellar stream.  To highlight how unusual this grouping

1020: is, we note that over the eight fields observed by SG07 (with similar

1021: targeting priorities), only 7 out of nearly 900 stars had $v_{\rm GSR}

1022: \ge 200$\kms, with only one field having more than one higher velocity

1023: stars (as compared to 4 of 59 in Segue\,1).  Since none of the SG07

1024: fields are near any known streams, we circumstantially associated

1025: these four stars with the Sgr stream.  However, none of the Sgr models

1026: discussed above match the position and velocity of these higher

1027: velocity stars (filled circle in Figure~\ref{sgr.fig}).  We

1028: tentatively associate these stars with older Sgr tidal debris or a

1029: possibly a new stream.  More observations and theoretical work is

1030: needed in this region to confirm this hypothesis.

1031: 

1032: 

1033: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1034: %   L-z 

1035: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1036: \begin{figure*}

1037: \epsscale{0.8}

1038: \plotone{fig6.eps}

1039: \vskip 0.2cm

1040: \caption{\small{Segue\,1 lies at the low luminosity end of the

1041:     metallicity([Fe/H])-luminosity, mass-to-light-luminosity and

1042:     mass-luminosity relationships established by the Milky Way

1043:     dSphs. Masses for the Milky Way dSph are taken from

1044:     \citet{strigari08a}, luminosities from \citet{martin08a} and

1045:     \citet{mateo98a}, and metallicities from \citet{kirby08b}.  While

1046:     the luminosity spans nearly five orders of magnitude, the enclosed

1047:     (300\,pc) remains nearly constant at $10^7$\Msun.  Over the same

1048:     luminosity range, the metallicity decreases nearly 2\,dex.  

1049:     Explaining the mechanisms that set these relationships is key to

1050:     understanding galaxy formation at the smallest

1051:     scales.}}\label{fig_corr}

1052: \end{figure*}

1053: 

1054: 

1055: 

1056: \section{The Predicted Gamma-ray Flux from Segue\,1}\label{sec_gamma}

1057: 

1058: Having established that Segue\,1 is dark matter-dominated, it is

1059: interesting to consider the implications of having a massive dark

1060: matter halo in such close proximity to the Sun.  Generically, dSphs

1061: have been attractive targets for indirect dark matter detection

1062: experiments, via particle annihilation production of gamma-rays, due

1063: to their high dark matter densities and lack of internal

1064: gamma-ray sources~\citep{baltz00a, tyler02a}.  \citet{strigari07b}

1065: note that the even higher dark matter densities of the recently

1066: discovered ultra-faint dSphs, combined with their proximity, make them

1067: particularly interesting candidates for indirect detection. 

1068: Upper limits on the gamma-ray fluxes have so far been reported

1069: for several classical dwarfs including the Draco, Ursa Minor, and

1070: Sagittarius dSph \citep{aharonian08a,driscoll07a,wood08a}.  The recent

1071: launch of Gamma-ray Large Area Telescope (GLAST) satellite

1072: \citep{ritz07a} makes this a particularly timely calculation.

1073: 

1074: Based on the mass estimates of \S\,\ref{ssec_mass}, the average dark

1075: matter density of Segue\,1 is 1.65\Msun/pc$^{-3}$ inside 50\,pc.  We

1076: determine the gamma-ray flux from dark matter annihilation by

1077: marginalizing over the unknown halo parameters using a maximum

1078: likelihood analysis similar to that described in \S\,\ref{ssec_mass}.

1079: We assume the most optimistic supersymmetric model for the dark matter

1080: particle, and refer to \citet{strigari07b} for additional details of

1081: the input assumptions.  Because we are considering an annihilation

1082: signal, the gamma-ray flux scales as the square of the central density

1083: and as the inverse square of the distance.  Marginalizing over the

1084: appropriate parameters, we find the predicted gamma-ray flux for

1085: Segue~1 is $\Phi_{\gamma} = 5.5^{+10}_{-3.5} \times 10^{-10}$\,photons

1086: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.  The mean value of this flux is more than a factor

1087: of ten larger than that from the classical dSphs and is higher than

1088: that predicted for any of the previous ultra-faint dwarfs

1089: \citep{strigari07b}.  Thus, Segue~1 is an excellent target for the

1090: indirect detection of dark matter via particle annihilation.

1091: 

1092: 

1093: \section{Discussion}\label{sec_disc}

1094: 

1095: As seen in Figure~\ref{fig_corr}, Segue\,1 lies on an extension of the

1096: luminosity-metallicity and luminosity-mass relationships established

1097: by brighter Milky Way dSphs.  While the dSphs span nearly five orders

1098: of magnitude in luminosity, their mass enclosed within 300\,pc remains

1099: nearly constant at $10^7$\Msun \citep{strigari08a}. This common mass

1100: scale has been noted in previous studies \citep{mateo93a, gilmore07a},

1101: but remains a very surprising result given the much larger luminosity

1102: range spanned by the present data.  It strongly suggests the existence

1103: of a characteristic scale in either galaxy formation processes or dark

1104: matter physics.  At the same time, the average metallicities of the

1105: dSphs are correlated with luminosity such that stars in the least

1106: luminous dSph are the most metal-poor \citep{kirby08b}. Segue\,1 is at

1107: the extreme end of these relationships: its luminosity is merely $L =

1108: 340$\Lsun, yet its total mass enclosed within 300\,pc is $10^7$\Msun

1109: (projecting the mass model discussed in \S\,\ref{ssec_mass}),

1110: resulting in the highest $M/L_V$ ratio of any known stellar system.

1111: The metallicity for the single RGB star in Segue\,1 is [Fe/H] =

1112: $-3.3$\,dex, one of the most metal-poor stars known in a dSph galaxy.

1113: This metallicity is slightly less than that predicted by the Kirby et

1114: al.~log-linear relationship, however, we note that the average

1115: galactic metallicity may be higher than this single star.

1116: 

1117: 

1118: The correlations in Figure~\ref{fig_corr} are the key to understanding

1119: how dSphs form.  While several formation avenues exist to modify the

1120: mass-to-light ratio of dSphs, the added constraint of the

1121: luminosity-metallicity correlation reduces the number of allowable

1122: models.  This correlation rules out a tidal stripping scenario in

1123: which lower luminosity systems initially form as more luminous

1124: galaxies outside the environment of the Milky Way and are then tidally

1125: stripped to their present state as they enter the Milky

1126: Way environs.  In this scenario, the metallicity of stars would not be

1127: tied to the present luminosity. While ruling out formation scenarios

1128: is certainly progress, determining what formation processes can

1129: explain the observed correlations will be more challenging

1130: \citep[e.g.][]{bovill08a}.  A key question raised by the Segue\,1

1131: results is why the Milky Way dwarf dSphs have such remarkably

1132: different luminosities, yet appear to have similar total

1133: masses.  Why do all these objects have a common mass halo and is this

1134: consistent with the mass spectrum of dark matter halos predicted by

1135: simulations?  Explaining the mechanism that sets both the

1136: mass-luminosity and luminosity-metallicity relationships in the Milky

1137: Way will provide insight to the formation of galaxies at all scales.

1138:  

1139: 

1140: \section{Summary}\label{sec_summ}

1141: 

1142: Segue\,1 ($M_V = -1.5^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$) is the least luminous of the

1143: ultra-faint galaxies recently discovered in the SDSS, and thus the

1144: least luminous known galaxy.  We present Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopy of

1145: \nmembers\ member stars suggests that Segue\,1 is dark

1146: matter-dominated and metal-poor.  We measure an internal velocity

1147: dispersion of $4.3\pm 1.2$\kms, and infer a total mass of

1148: $4.5^{+4.7}_{-2.5} \times 10^5 M_{\odot}$ in the case where

1149: mass-follow-light; using a two-component maximum likelihood model, we

1150: determine a mass within 50\,pc of $8.7_{-5.3}^{+13} \times

1151: 10^5$M$_\odot$.  The two masses agree within errors, however, in the

1152: first case, the majority of dark matter mass in the galaxy resides

1153: within the stellar radius, while the second method leaves open the

1154: possibility that the majority of the mass lies {\em outside} the

1155: observed light distribution.  The metallicity of the single RGB star

1156: in our sample if [Fe/H] = $-3.3$\,dex, well below that of any known

1157: globular cluster \citep{harris96a}.  Although Segue\,1 is spatially

1158: superimposed on the Sagittarius stream, its mean velocity is

1159: inconsistent with recent Sagittarius tidal debris in this region.  Our

1160: models leave open the possibility that Segue\,1 is a dwarf galaxy that

1161: was initially associated with the Sgr dSph, but was stripped away

1162: early in tidal interaction between Sagittarius and the Milky Way.

1163: Finally, we note that the combined high central dark matter density

1164: and the proximity of Segue\,1 make it an attractive target for

1165: indirect dark matter detection experiments.

1166: 

1167: The number of ultra-faint dSphs around the Milky Way has doubled in

1168: the past few years.  The seemingly ubiquitous presence of these

1169: objects has forced a fundamental shift in galaxy formation models at

1170: the smallest scales.  The high $M/L$ ratios and dark matter densities

1171: of the least luminous dSphs, such as Segue\,1, may also lead to an

1172: improved understanding of dark matter itself.  The promised discovery

1173: of many additional ultra-faints dwarfs around the Milky Way and other

1174: nearby galaxies makes this fertile ground for continued study.

1175: 

1176: 

1177: 

1178: \acknowledgments

1179: 

1180: We acknowledge and appreciate conversations regarding this work with

1181: James Bullock, Raja Guhathakurta, Manoj Kaplinghat, Shane Walsh and

1182: Adi Zolotov.  ENK acknowledges the support of an NSF Graduate Research

1183: Fellowship.  JDS gratefully acknowledges the support of a Millikan

1184: Fellowship provided by Caltech.  LES by NASA through Hubble Fellowship

1185: grant HF-01225.01 awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute,

1186: which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in

1187: Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555.

1188: 

1189:  %add Keck ack

1190: 

1191: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.

1192: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.

1193: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of

1194: %% curly braces.  If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error

1195: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".

1196: %%

1197: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite

1198: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a

1199: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds

1200: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).

1201: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else they

1202: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain

1203: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in

1204: %% place of the \cite commands.

1205: 

1206: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.

1207: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.

1208: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.

1209: 

1210: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly

1211: %% different from previous examples.  The natbib system solves a host

1212: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly

1213: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.

1214: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.

1215: 

1216: 

1217: 

1218: %\bibliographystyle{../tex_files/apj}

1219: %\bibliography{../tex_files/apj-jour,../tex_files/mgbib}

1220: 

1221: 

1222: \begin{thebibliography}{69}

1223: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1224: 

1225: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2008)}]{dr6}

1226: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K. {et~al.} 2008, \apjs, 175, 297

1227: 

1228: \bibitem[{{Aharonian} {et~al.}(2008)}]{aharonian08a}

1229: {Aharonian}, F. {et~al.} 2008, Astroparticle Physics, 29, 55

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[{{Baltz} {et~al.}(2000){Baltz}, {Briot}, {Salati}, {Taillet}, \&

1232:   {Silk}}]{baltz00a}

1233: {Baltz}, E.~A., {Briot}, C., {Salati}, P., {Taillet}, R., \& {Silk}, J. 2000,

1234:   \prd, 61, 023514

1235: 

1236: \bibitem[{{Bellazzini} {et~al.}(2003){Bellazzini}, {Ferraro}, \&

1237:   {Ibata}}]{bellazzini03a}

1238: {Bellazzini}, M., {Ferraro}, F.~R., \& {Ibata}, R. 2003, \aj, 125, 188

1239: 

1240: \bibitem[{{Belokurov} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})}]{belokurov06a}

1241: {Belokurov}, V. {et~al.} 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 647, L111

1242: 

1243: \bibitem[{{Belokurov} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})}]{belokurov06c}

1244: {Belokurov}, V. {et~al.} 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 642, L137

1245: 

1246: \bibitem[{{Belokurov} {et~al.}(2007)}]{belokurov06b}

1247: {Belokurov}, V. {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 654, 897

1248: 

1249: \bibitem[{{Bovill} \& {Ricotti}(2008)}]{bovill08a}

1250: {Bovill}, M.~S. \& {Ricotti}, M. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 806

1251: 

1252: \bibitem[{{Carraro} {et~al.}(2007){Carraro}, {Zinn}, \& {Moni

1253:   Bidin}}]{carraro07a}

1254: {Carraro}, G., {Zinn}, R., \& {Moni Bidin}, C. 2007, \aap, 466, 181

1255: 

1256: \bibitem[{{Casetti-Dinescu} {et~al.}(2007){Casetti-Dinescu}, {Girard},

1257:   {Herrera}, {van Altena}, {L{\'o}pez}, \& {Castillo}}]{casetti-dinescu07a}

1258: {Casetti-Dinescu}, D.~I., {Girard}, T.~M., {Herrera}, D., {van Altena}, W.~F.,

1259:   {L{\'o}pez}, C.~E., \& {Castillo}, D.~J. 2007, \aj, 134, 195

1260: 

1261: \bibitem[{{Chonis} \& {Gaskell}(2008)}]{chonis08a}

1262: {Chonis}, T.~S. \& {Gaskell}, C.~M. 2008, \aj, 135, 264

1263: 

1264: \bibitem[{{Clem} {et~al.}(2008){Clem}, {Vanden Berg}, \& {Stetson}}]{clem08a}

1265: {Clem}, J.~L., {Vanden Berg}, D.~A., \& {Stetson}, P.~B. 2008, \aj, 135, 682

1266: 

1267: \bibitem[{{Faber} {et~al.}(2003)}]{faber03a}

1268: {Faber}, S.~M. {et~al.} 2003, in Instrument Design and Performance for

1269:   Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes. Edited by Iye \& Moorwood,

1270:   Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 4841, pp. 1657

1271: 

1272: \bibitem[{{Fellhauer} {et~al.}(2006)}]{Fellhauer06a}

1273: {Fellhauer}, M. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 651, 167

1274: 

1275: \bibitem[{{Gilmore} {et~al.}(2007){Gilmore}, {Wilkinson}, {Wyse}, {Kleyna},

1276:   {Koch}, {Evans}, \& {Grebel}}]{gilmore07a}

1277: {Gilmore}, G., {Wilkinson}, M.~I., {Wyse}, R.~F.~G., {Kleyna}, J.~T., {Koch},

1278:   A., {Evans}, N.~W., \& {Grebel}, E.~K. 2007, \apj, 663, 948

1279: 

1280: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(2004){Girardi}, {Grebel}, {Odenkirchen}, \&

1281:   {Chiosi}}]{girardi04a}

1282: {Girardi}, L., {Grebel}, E.~K., {Odenkirchen}, M., \& {Chiosi}, C. 2004, \aap,

1283:   422, 205

1284: 

1285: \bibitem[{{Harris}(1996)}]{harris96a}

1286: {Harris}, W.~E. 1996, \aj, 112, 1487

1287: 

1288: \bibitem[{{Helmi} {et~al.}(2006)}]{helmi06a}

1289: {Helmi}, A. {et~al.} 2006, \apjl, 651, L121

1290: 

1291: \bibitem[{{Illingworth}(1976)}]{illingworth76a}

1292: {Illingworth}, G. 1976, \apj, 204, 73

1293: 

1294: \bibitem[{{Irwin} {et~al.}(2007)}]{irwin07a}

1295: {Irwin}, M. {et~al.} 2007, \apjl, 656, L13

1296: 

1297: \bibitem[{{Johnston} {et~al.}(2005){Johnston}, {Law}, \&

1298:   {Majewski}}]{johnston05a}

1299: {Johnston}, K.~V., {Law}, D.~R., \& {Majewski}, S.~R. 2005, \apj, 619, 800

1300: 

1301: \bibitem[{{King}(1966)}]{king66a}

1302: {King}, I.~R. 1966, \aj, 71, 64

1303: 

1304: \bibitem[{{Kirby} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Kirby}, {Guhathakurta}, \&

1305:   {Sneden}}]{kirby08a}

1306: {Kirby}, E.~N., {Guhathakurta}, P., \& {Sneden}, C. 2008{\natexlab{a}}, \apj,

1307:   682, 1217

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[{{Kirby} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Kirby}, {Simon}, {Geha},

1310:   {Guhathakurta}, \& {Frebel}}]{kirby08b}

1311: {Kirby}, E.~N., {Simon}, J.~D., {Geha}, M., {Guhathakurta}, P., \& {Frebel}, A.

1312:   2008{\natexlab{b}}, astro-ph/0807.1925

1313: 

1314: \bibitem[{{Kleyna} {et~al.}(2005){Kleyna}, {Wilkinson}, {Evans}, \&

1315:   {Gilmore}}]{kleyna05a}

1316: {Kleyna}, J.~T., {Wilkinson}, M.~I., {Evans}, N.~W., \& {Gilmore}, G. 2005,

1317:   \apjl, 630, L141

1318: 

1319: \bibitem[{{Klimentowski} {et~al.}(2007){Klimentowski}, {{\L}okas},

1320:   {Kazantzidis}, {Prada}, {Mayer}, \& {Mamon}}]{klimentowski07a}

1321: {Klimentowski}, J., {{\L}okas}, E.~L., {Kazantzidis}, S., {Prada}, F., {Mayer},

1322:   L., \& {Mamon}, G.~A. 2007, \mnras, 378, 353

1323: 

1324: \bibitem[{{Koch} {et~al.}(2008){Koch}, {Grebel}, {Gilmore}, {Wyse}, {Kleyna},

1325:   {Harbeck}, {Wilkinson}, \& {Wyn Evans}}]{koch08a}

1326: {Koch}, A., {Grebel}, E.~K., {Gilmore}, G.~F., {Wyse}, R.~F.~G., {Kleyna},

1327:   J.~T., {Harbeck}, D.~R., {Wilkinson}, M.~I., \& {Wyn Evans}, N. 2008, \aj,

1328:   135, 1580

1329: 

1330: \bibitem[{{Koposov} {et~al.}(2007)}]{koposov07a}

1331: {Koposov}, S. {et~al.} 2007, astro-ph/0706.2687

1332: 

1333: \bibitem[{{Lanfranchi} \& {Matteucci}(2004)}]{lanfranchi04a}

1334: {Lanfranchi}, G.~A. \& {Matteucci}, F. 2004, \mnras, 351, 1338

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[{{Law} {et~al.}(2005){Law}, {Johnston}, \& {Majewski}}]{law05a}

1337: {Law}, D.~R., {Johnston}, K.~V., \& {Majewski}, S.~R. 2005, \apj, 619, 807

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[{{Madau} {et~al.}(2008){Madau}, {Diemand}, \& {Kuhlen}}]{madau08a}

1340: {Madau}, P., {Diemand}, J., \& {Kuhlen}, M. 2008, astro-ph/0802.2265

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[{{Majewski} {et~al.}(2003){Majewski}, {Skrutskie}, {Weinberg}, \&

1343:   {Ostheimer}}]{majewski03a}

1344: {Majewski}, S.~R., {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {Weinberg}, M.~D., \& {Ostheimer}, J.~C.

1345:   2003, \apj, 599, 1082

1346: 

1347: \bibitem[{{Majewski} {et~al.}(2004)}]{majewski04a}

1348: {Majewski}, S.~R. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 128, 245

1349: 

1350: \bibitem[{{Maraston}(2005)}]{maraston05a}

1351: {Maraston}, C. 2005, \mnras, 362, 799

1352: 

1353: \bibitem[{{Marcolini} {et~al.}(2008){Marcolini}, {D'Ercole}, {Battaglia}, \&

1354:   {Gibson}}]{marcolini08a}

1355: {Marcolini}, A., {D'Ercole}, A., {Battaglia}, G., \& {Gibson}, B.~K. 2008,

1356:   \mnras, 386, 2173

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[{{Martin} {et~al.}(2008){Martin}, {de Jong}, \& {Rix}}]{martin08a}

1359: {Martin}, N.~F., {de Jong}, J.~T.~A., \& {Rix}, H.-W. 2008, \apj, 684, 1075

1360: 

1361: \bibitem[{{Martin} {et~al.}(2007){Martin}, {Ibata}, {Chapman}, {Irwin}, \&

1362:   {Lewis}}]{martin07a}

1363: {Martin}, N.~F., {Ibata}, R.~A., {Chapman}, S.~C., {Irwin}, M., \& {Lewis},

1364:   G.~F. 2007, \mnras, 380, 281

1365: 

1366: \bibitem[{{Mateo} {et~al.}(1993){Mateo}, {Olszewski}, {Pryor}, {Welch}, \&

1367:   {Fischer}}]{mateo93a}

1368: {Mateo}, M., {Olszewski}, E.~W., {Pryor}, C., {Welch}, D.~L., \& {Fischer}, P.

1369:   1993, \aj, 105, 510

1370: 

1371: \bibitem[{{Mateo}(1998)}]{mateo98a}

1372: {Mateo}, M.~L. 1998, \araa, 36, 435

1373: 

1374: \bibitem[{{Mayer} {et~al.}(2006){Mayer}, {Mastropietro}, {Wadsley}, {Stadel},

1375:   \& {Moore}}]{mayer06a}

1376: {Mayer}, L., {Mastropietro}, C., {Wadsley}, J., {Stadel}, J., \& {Moore}, B.

1377:   2006, \mnras, 369, 1021

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[{{Mu{\~n}oz} {et~al.}(2006){Mu{\~n}oz}, {Carlin}, {Frinchaboy},

1380:   {Nidever}, {Majewski}, \& {Patterson}}]{munoz06a}

1381: {Mu{\~n}oz}, R.~R., {Carlin}, J.~L., {Frinchaboy}, P.~M., {Nidever}, D.~L.,

1382:   {Majewski}, S.~R., \& {Patterson}, R.~J. 2006, \apjl, 650, L51

1383: 

1384: \bibitem[{{Mu{\~n}oz} {et~al.}(2008){Mu{\~n}oz}, {Majewski}, \&

1385:   {Johnston}}]{munoz08a}

1386: {Mu{\~n}oz}, R.~R., {Majewski}, S.~R., \& {Johnston}, K.~V. 2008, \apj, 679,

1387:   346

1388: 

1389: \bibitem[{{Olszewski} {et~al.}(1996){Olszewski}, {Pryor}, \&

1390:   {Armandroff}}]{olszewski96a}

1391: {Olszewski}, E.~W., {Pryor}, C., \& {Armandroff}, T.~E. 1996, \aj, 111, 750

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[{{Pritzl} {et~al.}(2005){Pritzl}, {Venn}, \& {Irwin}}]{Pritzl05a}

1394: {Pritzl}, B.~J., {Venn}, K.~A., \& {Irwin}, M. 2005, \aj, 130, 2140

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[{{Putman} {et~al.}(2008){Putman}, {Grcevich}, \& {Peek}}]{putman08a}

1397: {Putman}, M.~E., {Grcevich}, J., \& {Peek}, J.~E.~G. 2008, astro-ph/0803.3069,

1398:   803

1399: 

1400: \bibitem[{{Ricotti} {et~al.}(2008){Ricotti}, {Gnedin}, \& {Shull}}]{ricotti08a}

1401: {Ricotti}, M., {Gnedin}, N.~Y., \& {Shull}, J.~M. 2008, astro-ph/0802.2715

1402: 

1403: \bibitem[{{Rider} {et~al.}(2004){Rider}, {Tucker}, {Smith}, {Stoughton},

1404:   {Allam}, \& {Neilsen}}]{rider04a}

1405: {Rider}, C.~J., {Tucker}, D.~L., {Smith}, J.~A., {Stoughton}, C., {Allam},

1406:   S.~S., \& {Neilsen}, Jr., E.~H. 2004, \aj, 127, 2210

1407: 

1408: \bibitem[{{Ritz} {et~al.}(2007){Ritz}, {Michelson}, {Meegan}, {Grindlay}, \&

1409:   {GLAST Mission Team}}]{ritz07a}

1410: {Ritz}, S.~M., {Michelson}, P.~F., {Meegan}, C., {Grindlay}, J., \& {GLAST

1411:   Mission Team}. 2007, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol.

1412:   211, 98.01

1413: 

1414: \bibitem[{{Robin} {et~al.}(2003){Robin}, {Reyl{\'e}}, {Derri{\`e}re}, \&

1415:   {Picaud}}]{robin03a}

1416: {Robin}, A.~C., {Reyl{\'e}}, C., {Derri{\`e}re}, S., \& {Picaud}, S. 2003,

1417:   \aap, 409, 523

1418: 

1419: \bibitem[{{Rutledge} {et~al.}(1997){Rutledge}, {Hesser}, \&

1420:   {Stetson}}]{rutledge97a}

1421: {Rutledge}, G.~A., {Hesser}, J.~E., \& {Stetson}, P.~B. 1997, \pasp, 109, 907

1422: 

1423: \bibitem[{{Sakamoto} \& {Hasegawa}(2006)}]{sakamoto06a}

1424: {Sakamoto}, T. \& {Hasegawa}, T. 2006, \apjl, 653, L29

1425: 

1426: \bibitem[{Schlegel {et~al.}(1998)Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis}]{schlegel98a}

1427: Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525

1428: 

1429: \bibitem[{{Siegel} {et~al.}(2008){Siegel}, {Shetrone}, \& {Irwin}}]{siegel08a}

1430: {Siegel}, M.~H., {Shetrone}, M.~D., \& {Irwin}, M. 2008, \aj, 135, 2084

1431: 

1432: \bibitem[{{Simon} \& {Geha}(2007)}]{simon07a}

1433: {Simon}, J.~D. \& {Geha}, M. 2007, \apj, 670, 313

1434: 

1435: \bibitem[{{Sohn} {et~al.}(2007)}]{sohn06a}

1436: {Sohn}, S.~T. {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 663, 960

1437: 

1438: \bibitem[{{STACEE Collaboration: Driscoll} {et~al.}(2007)}]{driscoll07a}

1439: {STACEE Collaboration: Driscoll} {et~al.} 2007, astro-ph/0710.3545

1440: 

1441: \bibitem[{{Strigari} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Strigari}, {Bullock},

1442:   {Kaplinghat}, {Simon}, {Geha}, {Willman}, \& {Walker}}]{strigari08a}

1443: {Strigari}, L.~E., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Kaplinghat}, M., {Simon}, J.~D., {Geha},

1444:   M., {Willman}, B., \& {Walker}, M. 2008{\natexlab{a}}, Nature, {\rm in

1445:   press}, astro-ph/0808.3772

1446: 

1447: \bibitem[{{Strigari} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Strigari}, {Koushiappas},

1448:   {Bullock}, {Kaplinghat}, {Simon}, {Geha}, \& {Willman}}]{strigari07b}

1449: {Strigari}, L.~E., {Koushiappas}, S.~M., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Kaplinghat}, M.,

1450:   {Simon}, J.~D., {Geha}, M., \& {Willman}, B. 2008{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 678,

1451:   614

1452: 

1453: \bibitem[{{Tollerud} {et~al.}(2008){Tollerud}, {Bullock}, {Strigari}, \&

1454:   {Willman}}]{tollerud08a}

1455: {Tollerud}, E.~J., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Strigari}, L.~E., \& {Willman}, B. 2008,

1456:   astro-ph/0806.4381

1457: 

1458: \bibitem[{Tyler(2002)}]{tyler02a}

1459: Tyler, C. 2002, Phys. Rev., D66, 023509

1460: 

1461: \bibitem[{{Venn} {et~al.}(2004){Venn}, {Irwin}, {Shetrone}, {Tout}, {Hill}, \&

1462:   {Tolstoy}}]{venn04a}

1463: {Venn}, K.~A., {Irwin}, M., {Shetrone}, M.~D., {Tout}, C.~A., {Hill}, V., \&

1464:   {Tolstoy}, E. 2004, \aj, 128, 1177

1465: 

1466: \bibitem[{{Walker} {et~al.}(2006){Walker}, {Mateo}, {Olszewski}, {Bernstein},

1467:   {Wang}, \& {Woodroofe}}]{walker06a}

1468: {Walker}, M.~G., {Mateo}, M., {Olszewski}, E.~W., {Bernstein}, R., {Wang}, X.,

1469:   \& {Woodroofe}, M. 2006, \aj, 131, 2114

1470: 

1471: \bibitem[{{Walsh} {et~al.}(2008){Walsh}, {Willman}, \& {Jerjen}}]{walsh08b}

1472: {Walsh}, S., {Willman}, B., \& {Jerjen}, H. 2008, astro-ph/0807.3345

1473: 

1474: \bibitem[{{Walsh} {et~al.}(2007){Walsh}, {Jerjen}, \& {Willman}}]{walsh07a}

1475: {Walsh}, S.~M., {Jerjen}, H., \& {Willman}, B. 2007, \apjl, 662, L83

1476: 

1477: \bibitem[{{Willman} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}})}]{willman05b}

1478: {Willman}, B. {et~al.} 2005{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 129, 2692

1479: 

1480: \bibitem[{{Willman} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}})}]{willman05a}

1481: {Willman}, B. {et~al.} 2005{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 626, L85

1482: 

1483: \bibitem[{{Wood} {et~al.}(2008)}]{wood08a}

1484: {Wood}, M. {et~al.} 2008, \apj, 678, 594

1485: 

1486: \bibitem[{{Zucker} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})}]{zucker06a}

1487: {Zucker}, D.~B. {et~al.} 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 650, L41

1488: 

1489: \bibitem[{{Zucker} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})}]{zucker06b}

1490: {Zucker}, D.~B. {et~al.} 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 643, L103

1491: 

1492: \end{thebibliography}

1493: 

1494: 

1495: 

1496: 

1497: \clearpage

1498: 

1499: 

1500: \begin{deluxetable}{lccr}

1501: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1502: \tablecaption{Summary of Observed and Derived Quantities for Segue\,1}

1503: \tablewidth{0pt}

1504: \tablehead{

1505: \colhead{Row} & \colhead{Quantity} & \colhead{Units} & \colhead{Segue\,1}

1506: }

1507: \startdata

1508: (1) & RA        & h:m:s          & 10:07:03.2$\pm1.7^{s}$ \\

1509: (2) & DEC       & $^{\circ}: \> ': \> ''$ & +16:04:25$\pm15''$ \\ 

1510: (3) & E(B-V)    & mag            & 0.032 \\

1511: (4) & Dist      & kpc            & $23\pm2$  \\

1512: (5) & $M_{V,0}$  & mag            & $-1.5^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ \\

1513: (6) & $L_{V,0}$  & \Lsun          & 340\\

1514: (7) & $\epsilon$&                & $0.48^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$ \\

1515: (8) & $\mu_{V,0}$ & mag arcs$^{-2}$ & $27.6^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$ \\ 

1516: (9)  & $r_{\rm eff}$ & $'$        & $4.4^{+1.2}_{-0.6}$  \\

1517: (10)  & $r_{\rm eff}$ & pc          & $29^{+8}_{-5}$  \\

1518: \hline

1519: (11)  & $v$         & \kms        & $206.4\pm1.3$\\

1520: (12)  & $v_{\rm GSR}$  & \kms        & $114\pm2$\\

1521: (13)  & $\sigma$  & \kms           & $4.3\pm1.2$\\

1522: (14)  & Mass     & \Msun           & $4.3^{+4.7}_{-2.5}\times10^5$  \\

1523: (15)  & M/L      & \Msun/\Lsun     & $1340^{+4340}_{-990}$    \\

1524: (16)  & [Fe/H]   & dex             & $-3.3\pm 0.2$  

1525: \enddata

1526: \tablecomments{Columns (1)-(2) and (5)-(10) taken from the SDSS

1527:   photometric analysis of \citet{martin08a}.  Column (3) from

1528:   \citet{schlegel98a} and (4) from \citet{belokurov06b}.  Columns

1529:   (11)-(16) are derived in \S\,\ref{sec_kin}.}

1530: \end{deluxetable} 

1531: 

1532: 

1533: 

1534: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}

1535: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1536: \tablecaption{Keck/DEIMOS Velocity Measurements for Stars in Segue\,1 Sample}

1537: \tablewidth{0pt}

1538: \tablehead{

1539: \colhead{i} &

1540: \colhead{Name} &

1541: \colhead{$\alpha$ (J2000)} &

1542: \colhead{$\delta$ (J2000)} &

1543: \colhead{$g$} &

1544: \colhead{$(g-r)$} &

1545: \colhead{$v$} &

1546: \colhead{$v_{\rm err}$} &

1547: \colhead{$v_{\rm gsr}$} \\

1548: \colhead{}&

1549: \colhead{}&

1550: \colhead{h$\,$ $\,$ m$\,$ $\,$s} &

1551: \colhead{$^\circ\,$ $\,'\,$ $\,''$} &

1552: \colhead{mag} &

1553: \colhead{mag} &

1554: \colhead{\kms} &

1555: \colhead{\kms} &

1556: \colhead{\kms} &

1557: }

1558: \startdata

1559: \multicolumn{9}{c}{{\bf Segue\,1 Members}}\\

1560:  1 &  3451635   &     10:06:40.5 &    +16:02:38.1 &     22.0 &    0.36 &    204.1 &      6.4 &    109.2 \\

1561:  2 &  3451345   &     10:06:44.5 &    +16:01:29.4 &     20.7 &    0.27 &    210.5 &      4.0 &    115.5 \\

1562:  3 &  3451159   &     10:06:44.6 &    +15:59:53.9 &     17.3 &   -0.01 &    200.4 &      2.2 &    105.5 \\

1563:  4 &  3451358   &     10:06:49.1 &    +16:03:48.7 &     20.6 &    0.22 &    198.9 &      5.1 &    104.0 \\

1564:  5 &  3451685   &     10:06:49.6 &    +16:03:08.3 &     21.1 &    0.13 &    207.8 &      6.7 &    112.9 \\

1565:  6 &  3451364   &     10:06:52.3 &    +16:02:35.8 &     18.9 &    0.48 &    215.6 &      2.9 &    120.7 \\

1566:  7 &  3451423   &     10:06:55.4 &    +16:04:16.2 &     20.7 &    0.27 &    213.0 &      3.8 &    118.1 \\

1567:  8 &  3451533   &     10:06:57.4 &    +16:03:00.0 &     21.6 &    0.29 &    216.8 &      4.2 &    121.9 \\

1568:  9 &  3451726   &     10:06:57.6 &    +16:02:30.1 &     22.3 &    0.14 &    212.8 &      5.3 &    117.9 \\

1569: 10 &  3451735   &     10:06:59.8 &    +16:02:18.5 &     22.0 &    0.38 &    203.6 &      4.9 &    108.7 \\

1570: 11 &  3451382   &     10:07:03.2 &    +16:03:35.0 &     21.8 &    0.34 &    206.6 &      5.2 &    111.7 \\

1571: 12 &  3451378   &     10:07:03.3 &    +16:02:34.4 &     20.6 &    0.29 &    205.5 &      2.7 &    110.6 \\

1572: 13 &  3451306   &     10:07:05.6 &    +16:04:22.0 &     17.5 &   -0.08 &    198.7 &      2.3 &    103.8 \\

1573: 14 &  3451374   &     10:07:01.3 &    +16:02:00.0 &     20.5 &    0.25 &    208.7 &      2.7 &    113.8 \\

1574: 15 &  3451757   &     10:07:01.5 &    +16:03:04.4 &     22.4 &    0.12 &    200.4 &      6.1 &    105.5 \\

1575: 16 &  3451790   &     10:07:06.7 &    +16:04:44.4 &     21.8 &    0.29 &    206.5 &      6.7 &    111.6 \\

1576: 17 &  1894468   &     10:07:14.8 &    +16:06:27.1 &     22.7 &    0.57 &    205.2 &      5.4 &    110.3 \\

1577: 18 &  3517005   &     10:07:14.9 &    +16:04:48.8 &     21.0 &    0.27 &    207.2 &      3.7 &    112.3 \\

1578: 19 &  1894643   &     10:07:15.1 &    +16:07:08.2 &     21.7 &    0.39 &    206.3 &      6.5 &    111.4 \\

1579: 20 &  3517002   &     10:07:15.7 &    +16:03:00.0 &     21.2 &    0.14 &    206.4 &     13.1 &    111.5 \\

1580: 21 &  3517007   &     10:07:16.3 &    +16:03:40.3 &     21.7 &    0.26 &    198.4 &      4.4 &    103.5 \\

1581: 22 &  3516925   &     10:07:24.1 &    +16:04:29.9 &     22.1 &    0.32 &    197.1 &      7.6 &    102.2 \\

1582: 23 &  1894761   &     10:07:28.4 &    +16:07:41.2 &     22.4 &    0.56 &    216.9 &     14.3 &    122.0 \\

1583: 24 &  3517048   &     10:07:31.1 &    +16:04:19.5 &     21.6 &    0.32 &    212.4 &      9.8 &    117.5 \\

1584: \hline \\

1585: \multicolumn{9}{c}{{\bf Higher Velocity Stars}}\\

1586: 1   &  3451696   &     10:06:50.8 &    +16:03:51.2 &     22.1 &    0.16 &    312.1 &     11.9 &    217.2 \\

1587: 2   &  3517146   &     10:07:13.7 &    +16:04:44.8 &     22.1 &    0.35 &    299.7 &      3.6 &    204.8 \\

1588: 3   &  3516836   &     10:07:17.4 &    +16:03:55.6 &     20.1 &    0.32 &    295.4 &      2.4 &    200.5 \\

1589: 4   &  3517243   &     10:07:32.5 &    +16:05:00.5 &     22.6 &    0.52 &    280.6 &      6.9 &    185.7 \\

1590: \hline \\

1591: \multicolumn{9}{c}{{\bf Non-Members}}\\

1592: 1   &  3451324   &     10:06:35.5 &    +16:02:21.1 &     17.7 &    0.88 &      1.4 &      2.2 &    $-$93.5 \\

1593: 2   &  3451835   &     10:06:36.3 &    +16:02:46.3 &     23.2 &    1.22 &    $-$21.2 &      2.7 &   $-$116.1 \\

1594: ..   &     ..     &         ..      &         ..      &       ..  &   ..     &       ..  &      ..  &     ..    

1595: \enddata

1596: \tablecomments{Velocity measurements for member stars of Segue\,1,

1597:   higher velocity stars possibly associated with the Sgr stream and

1598:   non-members.  Positions and magnitudes are taken from the SDSS DR6.

1599:   We list the heliocentric radial velocity ($v$), velocity error

1600:   ($v_{\rm err}$), and Galactocentric velocity ($v_{\rm gsr}$) for each

1601:   star as determined in \S\,\ref{subsec_rvel}.  Entries for

1602:   non-members are published in their entirety in the electronic

1603:   edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}.  }

1604: \end{deluxetable} 

1605: 

1606: 

1607: 

1608: 

1609: \clearpage

1610: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include 

1611: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.

1612: 

1613: 

1614: 

1615: 

1616: 

1617: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may

1618: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the 

1619: %% User Guide for details.

1620: %%

1621: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page, 

1622: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage 

1623: %% after every seventh one. 

1624: 

1625: \end{document}

1626: