Peremennye Zvezdy (Variable Stars) 27, No. 5, 2007 Received 3 October; accepted 19 October.
|
Article in PDF |
CCD ![]() |
SN 2002hh was discovered on 2002 October 31.1 UT during the course
of the Lick Observatory Supernova Search (Li, 2002). The Supernova
is located at
(2000.0), which is
west and
south of the nucleus of the Scd galaxy NGC 6946,
which has produced 7 other SNe. Spectra taken by Filippenko et al.
(2002) on 2002 November 2 revealed it to be a very young, highly
reddened type II SN. Broad, low-contrast H
emission and
absorption lines as well as strong, narrow interstellar NaI D
absorption were present. The continuum was nearly featureless and
very red. SN 2002hh was also detected as a source of radio and
X-ray emission (Stockdale et al., 2002; Pooley and Lewin, 2002).
A detailed study of optical and infrared photometric and
spectroscopic evolution for this object was presented by Pozzo et
al. (2006). They concluded that SN 2002hh was a SN IIP (plateau),
with early light curve similar to SN IIP 1999em, and that
radioactive tails were well matched for these two SNe and SN
1987A. They adopted a two-component model for extinction with
total mag.
We observed SN 2002hh from 2002 November 13 till 2003 October 12
with different telescopes and detectors: the 60-cm reflector of
the Crimean Observatory of Sternberg Astronomical Institute (C60)
equipped with a SBIG ST-7 CCD camera; the 70-cm reflector in
Moscow (M70) with a Meade Pictor416XT camera (a) or an Apogee AP47
camera (b); the 1.5-m reflector of the Maidanak Observatory
(Md150) with a SITe LN cooled CCD camera.
An image of SN 2002hh obtained at Md150 on 2003 August 10 in the
band is shown in Fig. 1, where the local standard stars are
marked. The magnitudes of these stars (reported in Table 1) were
measured on 11 photometric nights mostly in 2004-2005, when
observations of SN 2004et in the same galaxy had been carried out.
magnitudes of these stars were also derived by Pozzo et al.
(2006), and the mean differences between the two data sets and
their dispersions are:
;
;
;
;
;
. We may conclude that the agreement is
good. Photometric measurements of the SN were made relative to the
local standard stars using PSF-fitting with IRAF1 DAOPHOT package. On nights with bad
seeing, images of the SN and the nearby bright star overlapped,
and it was necessary to subtract the image of this star using the
task SUBSTAR in DAOPHOT.
The color terms for transformation of instrumental magnitudes
to the standard
system were derived from
observations of standard fields for C60 and M70 and from
photometry of local standards for Md150. The resulting color terms
are
;
;
for C60;
;
for M70a;
;
for M70b;
;
for Md150.
The photometry of SN 2002hh is presented in Table 2, and the light
curves are shown in Fig. 2, where the data from Pozzo et
al. (2006) as well as magnitude estimates at discovery and the
prediscovery upper limit from Li (2002) are also plotted. At the
plateau stage, the agreement between the two data sets is quite
good, although our and
filters at C60 and M70 do not match
the standard system well. Only in the
band there is evidence
for some systematic difference, our magnitudes being about 0.15
mag brighter.
We obtained images on two dates (2003 March 3 and March 26) that
are in the gap of Pozzo et al. (2006) data. At the exponential
decline stage, our magnitudes from Md150 are in a very good
agreement with the results of Pozzo et al. (2006), while in the
band our magnitudes are systematically brighter by about 0.18
mag. This difference is likely due to different response curves of
the equipment applied to an object with a very red color and
emission-dominated spectrum. This is also the reason for our
magnitudes from M70 to be brighter than from Md150; the latter
should be given greater weight as their errors are smaller and the
color system closer to the standard one.
We estimated the rate of decline at the exponential tail by
fitting a straight line to the data from Md150:
mag day
in
and
mag day
in
. The result for the
band is close to that by Pozzo et al.
(2006), but they found a significantly larger rate in
: 0.011
mag day
. We suppose that the difference is due to larger
errors of magnitudes by Pozzo et al. (2006) at the late stage. We
can also estimate the drop of brightness from the plateau to the
onset of the exponential tail: 1
4 in
and 1
6 in
.
We found that the light curve of SN 1999em was not a good match to
the data for SN 2002hh, as the brightness decline between the
plateau and the exponential-tail onset was significantly smaller
for SN 2002hh. Among the well-studied IIP Supernovae with normal
luminosity, SN 1999gi was probably the best match, although
considerable differences can be seen in Fig. 2, where we plotted
the light curves of SN 1999gi according to Leonard et al. (2002)
and our own unpublished data. While in the band the match is
very good, the magnitude difference between the plateau and the
onset of final decline in
and
is greater for SN 1999gi.
Taking the extinction from Pozzo et al. (2006) and the host
galaxy's distance of 5.9 Mpc (Karachentsev et al., 2000), we
obtain the absolute magnitude at maximum light , close
to the mean value for SNe IIP (Richardson et al., 2002).
We conclude that SN 2002hh is a normal type IIP supernova, with
the light curve similar to SN 1999gi, especially in the band.
Our photometry confirms the results of Pozzo et al. (2006), but we
obtain slightly different magnitudes and rate of decline in the
band at the epoch 200-340 days after the explosion.
Acknowledgements: The work of D.Yu.Tsvetkov was partly supported by the grant 05-02-17480 from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research.
References:
Filippenko, A.V., Foley, R.J., Swift, B., 2002, IAU Circ., No. 8007
Karachentsev, I.D., Sharina, M.E., Huchtmeier, W.K., 2000, Astron.& Astrophys., 362, 544
Leonard, D.C., Filippenko, A.V., Li, W., et al., 2002, Astron. J., 124, 2490
Li, W., 2002, IAU Circ., No. 8005
Stockdale, C.J., Sramek, R.A., Rupen, M., et al., 2002, IAU Circ., No. 8018
Pooley, D., Lewin, W.H.G., 2002, IAU Circ., No. 8024
Pozzo, M., Meikle, W.P.S., Rayner, J.T., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1169
Richardson, D., Branch, D., Casebeer, D., et al., 2002, Astron. J. 123, 745
![]() |
Fig. 2.
|
Star | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1 | 14.60 | 0.08 | 14.30 | 0.01 | 13.56 | 0.01 | 13.14 | 0.03 | 12.75 | 0.02 |
2 | 14.78 | 0.03 | 14.51 | 0.02 | 13.77 | 0.01 | 13.35 | 0.03 | 12.96 | 0.02 |
3 | 15.92 | 0.03 | 15.59 | 0.03 | 14.76 | 0.01 | 14.22 | 0.04 | 13.85 | 0.03 |
4 | 16.62 | 0.05 | 15.86 | 0.01 | 15.35 | 0.04 | 15.00 | 0.03 | ||
5 | 17.58 | 0.05 | 16.46 | 0.06 | 15.74 | 0.04 | 15.17 | 0.02 |
JD 2452000+ | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Telescope |
592.31 | 17.02 | 0.07 | 15.54 | 0.03 | 14.12 | 0.03 | C60 |
597.21 | 17.26 | 0.06 | 15.53 | 0.07 | 14.10 | 0.04 | C60 |
598.23 | 17.16 | 0.05 | 15.51 | 0.04 | 14.11 | 0.04 | C60 |
599.24 | 17.26 | 0.05 | 15.59 | 0.04 | 14.10 | 0.04 | C60 |
600.20 | 17.26 | 0.05 | 15.61 | 0.05 | 14.12 | 0.04 | C60 |
601.17 | 17.25 | 0.08 | 15.63 | 0.05 | 14.13 | 0.07 | C60 |
602.18 | 17.28 | 0.05 | 15.60 | 0.03 | 14.09 | 0.03 | C60 |
605.38 | 17.12 | 0.09 | 15.50 | 0.04 | 14.07 | 0.04 | C60 |
607.26 | 17.30 | 0.08 | 15.61 | 0.05 | 14.09 | 0.05 | C60 |
609.32 | 15.55 | 0.04 | 14.00 | 0.05 | C60 | ||
611.38 | 17.17 | 0.07 | 15.58 | 0.04 | 14.01 | 0.07 | C60 |
613.39 | 17.44 | 0.05 | 15.70 | 0.03 | 14.12 | 0.03 | C60 |
614.27 | 17.32 | 0.07 | 15.68 | 0.05 | 14.13 | 0.04 | C60 |
701.50 | 16.09 | 0.05 | 15.28 | 0.04 | M70a | ||
725.54 | 16.60 | 0.07 | 15.46 | 0.04 | M70a | ||
778.44 | 17.52 | 0.03 | 16.21 | 0.02 | Md150 | ||
787.46 | 17.60 | 0.03 | 16.31 | 0.02 | Md150 | ||
833.38 | 17.97 | 0.04 | 16.75 | 0.02 | Md150 | ||
862.27 | 18.19 | 0.03 | 17.04 | 0.02 | Md150 | ||
901.44 | 18.12 | 0.11 | 16.96 | 0.16 | M70b | ||
924.13 | 18.54 | 0.03 | 17.51 | 0.02 | Md150 | ||
925.10 | 18.66 | 0.03 | 17.67 | 0.02 | Md150 |