4.7 Article

SN 2008S: A COOL SUPER-EDDINGTON WIND IN A SUPERNOVA IMPOSTOR

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
Volume 697, Issue 1, Pages L49-L53

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/L49

Keywords

stars: mass loss; supernovae: individual (SN 2008S)

Funding

  1. W.M. Keck Foundation
  2. NASA [GO-10241, GO-10475, NAS5-26555]
  3. Spitzer [1264318, 30348]
  4. NSF [AST-0607485]
  5. NASA/Spitzer [1322321]
  6. TABASGO Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present visual-wavelength photometry and spectroscopy of supernova (SN) 2008S. Based on the low peak luminosity for a SN of M(R) = -13.9 mag, photometric and spectral evolution unlike that of low-luminosity SNe, a late-time decline rate slower than (56)Co decay, and slow outflow speeds of 600 1000 km s(-1), we conclude that SN 2008S is not a true core-collapse SN and is probably not an electron-capture SN. Instead, we show that SN 2008S more closely resembles an SN impostor event like SN 1997bs, analogous to the giant eruptions of luminous blue variables (LBVs). Its total radiated energy was similar to 10(47.8) erg, and it may have ejected 0.05-0.2 M(circle dot) in the event. We discover an uncanny similarity between the spectrum of SN 2008S and that of the Galactic hypergiant IRC+10420, which is dominated by narrow H alpha, [Ca II], and Ca II emission lines formed in an opaque wind. We propose a scenario where the vastly super-Eddington (Gamma approximate to 40) wind of SN 2008S partly fails because of reduced opacity due to recombination, as suggested for IRC+10420. The range of initial masses susceptible to eruptive LBV-like mass loss was known to extend down to 20-25 M(circle dot), but estimates for the progenitor of SN 2008S (and the similar NGC 300 transient) may extend this range to less than or similar to 15 M(circle dot). As such, SN 2008S may have implications for the progenitor of SN 1987A.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available