Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:38:14.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Role of Wide Field X-ray Surveys in Astronomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2015

Richard D. Saxton*
Affiliation:
Telespazio VEGA / XMM SOC, ESAC, Apartado 78, 28691 Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain email: richard.saxton@sciops.esa.int
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.

We review the history of X-ray sky surveys from the early experiments to the catalogues of 105 sources produced by ROSAT, Chandra and XMM-Newton. At bright fluxes the X-ray sky is shared between stars, accreting binaries and extragalactic sources while deeper surveys are dominated by AGN and clusters of galaxies. The X-ray background, found by the earliest missions, has been largely resolved into discrete sources at soft (0.3-2 keV) energies but at higher energies an important fraction still escapes detection. The possible identification of the missing flux with Compton-thick AGN has been probed in recent years by Swift and Integral.

Variability seen in objects observed at different epochs has proved to be an excellent discriminator for rare classes of objects. The comparison of ROSAT All Sky Survey (RASS) and ROSAT pointed observations identified several Novae and high variability AGN as well as initiating the observational study of Tidal Disruption events. More recently the XMM-Newton slew survey, in conjunction with archival RASS data, has detected further examples of flaring objects which have been followed-up in near-real time at other wavelengths.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2015 

References

Brandt, W. & Hasinger, G. 2005, Annu. Rev. of Astron. and Astroph. 43, 827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlon, D., Ajello, M., Greiner, J., Comastri, A., Merloni, A., & Gehrels, N. 2011, ApJ 728, 58Google Scholar
Esquej, P., Saxton, R., Freyberg, M., et al. 2007, A&A 462, 49Google Scholar
Farrell, S., et al. 2009, Nat. 460, 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacconi, R., & Gursky, H., Paolini, F., & Rossi, B. 1962, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilli, R., Comastri, A., & Hasinger, G. 2007, A&A 463, 79Google Scholar
Haberl, F. 2006 Space Sci. 308, 181Google Scholar
Harrison, F., et al. 2010, SPIE 7732, 27Google Scholar
Hasinger, G., Miyaji, T., & Schmidt, M. 2005, A&A 441, 417Google Scholar
Komossa, S. 2002, RvMA 15, 27Google Scholar
La Franca, F. 2005, ApJ 635, 864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuoka, M., et al. 2009 PASJ 61, 999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Predehl, P., Boehringer, H., Brunner, H., et al. 2010 SPIE 7732, 23Google Scholar
Saxton, R., Read, A., Esquej, P., et al. 2012, A&A 541, 106Google Scholar
Setti, G. & Woltjer, L. 1973, IAU Symposium No. 55 208Google Scholar
Terashima, Y., Kamizasa, N., Awaki, H., Kubota, A., & Ueda, Y 2012, ApJ 752, 154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, A&A 349, 389Google Scholar
Walton, D., Roberts, T., Mateos, S., & Heard, V. 2011, MNRAS 416, 1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, M., et al. 2009, A&A 493, 339Google Scholar
Winkler, C., Courvoisier, T., Di Cocco, G., et al. 2003 A&A 411, L1Google Scholar