4.7 Article

THE 2008 LUMINOUS OPTICAL TRANSIENT IN THE NEARBY GALAXY NGC 300

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 695, 期 2, 页码 L154-L158

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/L154

关键词

galaxies: individual (NGC 300); galaxies: stellar content; stars: individual (NGC 300 OT); stars: variables: other; stars: winds, outflows; supernovae: general

资金

  1. NASA [GO-11553, NAS526555]
  2. Space Telescope Science Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A luminous optical transient (OT) that appeared in NGC 300 in early 2008 had a maximum brightness, M(V) similar or equal to 12 to - 13, intermediate between classical novae and supernovae. We present ground-based photometric and spectroscopic monitoring and adaptive-optics imaging of the OT, as well as pre- and postoutburst space-based imaging with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and Spitzer. The optical spectrum at maximum showed an F-type supergiant photosphere with superposed emission lines of hydrogen, Ca II, and [Ca II], similar to the spectra of low-luminosity Type IIn supernova impostors like SN 2008S, as well as cool hypergiants like IRC +10420. The emission lines have a complex, double structure, indicating a bipolar outflow with velocities of similar to 75 km s(-1). The luminous energy released in the eruption was similar to 10(47) erg, most of it emitted in the first two months. By registering new HST images with deep archival frames, we have precisely located the OT site, and find no detectable optical progenitor brighter than broadband V magnitude 28.5. However, archival Spitzer images reveal a bright, nonvariable mid-infrared (mid-IR) preoutburst source. We conclude that the NGC 300 OT was a heavily dust-enshrouded luminous star, of similar to 10-15M(circle dot), which experienced an eruption that cleared the surrounding dust and initiated a bipolar wind. The progenitor was likely an OH/IR source which had begun to evolve on a blue loop toward higher temperatures, but the precise cause of the outburst remains uncertain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据