Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:23:04.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Toward a VLBI resolution of the Pleiades distance controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2013

Carl Melis
Affiliation:
Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093–0424, USA email: [email protected]
M. J. Reid
Affiliation:
Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
A. J. Mioduszewski
Affiliation:
National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Array Operations Center, 1003 Lopezville Road, Socorro, NM 87801, USA
J. R. Stauffer
Affiliation:
Spitzer Science Center (SSC), 1200 E. California Blvd., California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
G. C. Bower
Affiliation:
Astronomy Department and Radio Astronomy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Pleiades is the best-studied open cluster in the sky. It is one of the primary open clusters used to define the ‘zero-age main sequence,' and hence it serves as a cornerstone for programs which use main-sequence fitting to derive distances. This role is called into question by the ‘Pleiades distance controversy:' the distance to the Pleiades from Hipparcos of approximately 120 pc is significantly different from the distance of 133 pc derived using other techniques. To resolve this issue, we plan to use Very Long Baseline Interferometry to derive a new, independent trigonometric parallax distance to the Pleiades. In these proceedings we present our observational program and report some preliminary results.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2013

References

Bastian, T. S., Dulk, G. A., & Slee, O. B. 1988, AJ, 95, 794Google Scholar
Bouvier, J., Rigaut, F., & Nadeau, D. 1997, A&A, 323, 139Google Scholar
Gatewood, G., de Jonge, J. K., & Han, I. 2000, ApJ, 533, 938Google Scholar
Lim, J. & White, S. M. 1995, ApJ, 453, 207Google Scholar
Loinard, L., Torres, R. M., Mioduszewski, A. J., & Rodríguez, L. F. 2008, ApJ, 675, L29Google Scholar
Loinard, L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 546Google Scholar
Mermilliod, J.-C., Rosvick, J. M., Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1992, A&A, 265, 513Google Scholar
Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Kashyap, V., Harnden, F. R. Jr., & Rosner, R. 1996, ApJS, 102, 75Google Scholar
Micela, G., et al. 1999, A&A, 341, 751Google Scholar
Munari, U., Dallaporta, S., Siviero, A., Soubiran, C., Fiorucci, M., & Girard, P. 2004, A&A, 418, L31Google Scholar
Narayanan, V. K. & Gould, A. 1999, ApJ, 523, 328Google Scholar
Pan, X., Shao, M., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2004, Nature, 427, 326Google Scholar
Pinsonneault, M. H., Stauffer, J., Soderblom, D. R., King, J. R., & Hanson, R. B. 1998, ApJ, 504, 170Google Scholar
Raboud, D. & Mermilliod, J.-C. 1998, A&A, 329, 101Google Scholar
Reid, M. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 137Google Scholar
Soderblom, D. R., Nelan, E., Benedict, G. F., McArthur, B., Ramirez, I., Spiesman, W., & Jones, B. F. 2005, AJ, 129, 1616Google Scholar
Stauffer, J. R., Caillault, J.-P., Gagne, M., Prosser, C. F., & Hartmann, L. W. 1994, ApJS, 91, 625Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, F. 1999, A&A, 341, L71Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, F. & Hansen Ruiz, C. S. 1997, in: Hipparcos – Venice '97, (Bonnet, R.M., Høg, E., Bernacca, P.L., et al., eds), ESA-SP, 402, 689Google Scholar