English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The pre‐explosion observations of the Type II‐P supernovae 2006my, 2006ov and 2004et are re‐analysed. In the cases of supernovae 2006my and 2006ov we argue that the published candidate progenitors are not coincident with their respective supernova sites in pre‐explosion  Hubble Space Telescope  observations. We therefore derive upper luminosity and mass limits for the unseen progenitors of both these supernovae, assuming they are red supergiants: 2006my  (log  L /L ⊙ = 4.51;  m  &lt; 13 M ⊙ )  and 2006ov  (log  L /L ⊙ = 4.29;  m  &lt; 10 M ⊙ ) . In the case of supernova 2004et we show that the  yellow supergiant  progenitor candidate, originally identified in Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope images, is still visible  ∼ 3 yr post‐explosion in observations from the William Herschel Telescope. High‐resolution  Hubble Space Telescope  and  Gemini  (North) adaptive optics late‐time imagery reveal that this source is not a single yellow supergiant star, but rather is resolved into at least three distinct sources. We report the discovery of the unresolved progenitor as an excess of flux in pre‐explosion Isaac Newton Telescope  i ′‐band imaging. Accounting for the late‐time contribution of the supernova using published optical spectra, we calculate the progenitor photometry as the difference between the pre‐ and post‐explosion, ground‐based observations. We find the progenitor was most likely a late K to late M‐type supergiant of  8 +5  −1  M ⊙  . In all cases we conclude that future, high‐resolution observations of the supernova sites will be required to confirm these results.

On the nature of the progenitors of three Type II‐P supernovae: 2004et, 2006my and 2006ov