Paper detail

The SPLASH Survey: Internal Kinematics, Chemical Abundances, and Masses of the Andromeda I, II, III, VII, X, and XIV dSphs

We present new Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopic observations of hundreds of individual stars along the sightline to Andromeda's first three discovered dwarf spheroidal galaxies (dSphs) - And I, II, and III, and leverage recent observations by our team of three additional dSphs, And VII, X, and XIV, as a part of the SPLASH Survey. Member stars of each dSph are isolated from foreground Milky Way dwarf and M31 field contamination using a variety of photometric and spectroscopic diagnostics. Our final spectroscopic sample of member stars in each dSph, for which we measure accurate radial velocities with a median uncertainty (random plus systematic errors) of 4 - 5 km/s, includes 80 red giants in And I, 95 in And II, 43 in And III, 18 in And VII, 22 in And X, and 38 in And XIV. The sample of confirmed members in the six dSphs are used to derive each system's mean radial velocity, intrinsic central velocity dispersion, mean abundance, abundance spread, and dynamical mass. This combined data set presents us with a unique opportunity to perform the first systematic comparison of the global properties (e.g., metallicities, sizes, and dark matter masses) of one-third of Andromeda's total known dSph population with Milky Way counterparts of the same luminosity. We discuss both the luminosity-metallicity relation and the luminosity-size relation of these satellites, and find that the chemical evolution histories of each host's satellites is similar. The dynamical mass estimates of M31's dSphs are similar or smaller than Milky Way dSphs of the same luminosity despite their sizes being similar or larger, suggesting M31 dSphs are less dense than Milky Way counterparts. The implications of these results for general understanding of galaxy formation and evolution is summarized. Abridged.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access10 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.