1: %%

2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

3: %%

4: %% Modified 2005 December 5

5: %%

6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

8: 

9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

11: %% any data that comes before this command.

12: 

13: %% The command below calls the preprint style

14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

17: %%

18: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

19: 

20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

21: 

22: %\documentclass[preprint]{emulateapj}

23: 

24: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

25: 

26: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

27: 

28: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

29: 

30: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

31: 

32: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

33: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

34: %% use the longabstract style option.

35: 

36: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

37: 

38: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

39: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

40: %% the \begin{document} command.

41: %%

42: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

43: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

44: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

45: %% for information.

46: 

47: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

48: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}

49: \newcommand\etal{{et al. }}

50: \def\farcs{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$}}

51: \def\farcm{\hbox{$.\mkern-4mu^\prime$}}

52: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

53: 

54: \slugcomment{To be published in The Astrophysical Journal}

55: 

56: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

57: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

58: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

59: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

60: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

61: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

62: 

63: \shorttitle{Dust and SN~2003gd}

64: \shortauthors{Meikle et al.}

65: 

66: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

67: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

68: 

69: \begin{document}

70: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

71: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

72: %% you desire.

73: \title{A Spitzer Space Telescope Study of SN~2003gd: Still No Direct

74: Evidence that Core-Collapse Supernovae are Major Dust Factories}

75: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

76: %% author and affiliation information.

77: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

78: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

79: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

80: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

81: 

82: \author{W. P. S. Meikle,\altaffilmark{1}

83: S. Mattila,\altaffilmark{2} 

84: A. Pastorello,\altaffilmark{2} 

85: C. L. Gerardy,\altaffilmark{1} 

86: R. Kotak,\altaffilmark{2}

87: J. Sollerman,\altaffilmark{3} 

88: S.~D.~Van~Dyk,\altaffilmark{4} 

89: D.~Farrah,\altaffilmark{5} 

90: A. V. Filippenko,\altaffilmark{6} 

91: P. H\"oflich,\altaffilmark{7},

92: P. Lundqvist,\altaffilmark{8} 

93: M. Pozzo,\altaffilmark{9}  and

94: J.~C.~Wheeler\altaffilmark{10}} 

95: 

96: \altaffiltext{1}{Astrophysics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial

97: College London, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom;

98: p.meikle@imperial.ac.uk, c.gerardy@imperial.ac.uk}

99: \altaffiltext{2}{Astrophysics Research Centre, School of Mathematics and

100: Physics, Queen's University Belfast, BT7 1NN, United Kingdom;

101: s.mattila@qub.ac.uk, a.pastorello@qub.ac.uk, r.kotak@qub.ac.uk}

102: \altaffiltext{3}{Dark Cosmology Centre, Niels Bohr Institute,

103: University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, 2100 Copenhagen,

104: Denmark; jesper@astro.su.se}

105: \altaffiltext{4}{Spitzer Science Center/Caltech, Mail Code 220-6,

106: Pasadena, CA 91125; vandyk@ipac.caltech.edu}

107: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, 106 Space Sciences Building,

108: Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; duncan@isc.astro.cornell.edu}

109: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, University of

110: California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3411; alex@astro.berkeley.edu}

111: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics, Florida State University,

112: Tallahassee, FL 32306; pah@astro.physics.fsu.edu}

113: \altaffiltext{8}{Stockholm University, AlbaNova University Center,

114: Stockholm Observatory, Department of Astronomy, SE-106 91 Stockholm,

115: Sweden; peter@astro.su.se}

116: \altaffiltext{9}{Department of Earth Sciences, University College

117: London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK; m.pozzo@ucl.ac.uk}

118: \altaffiltext{10}{The University of Texas at Austin, Department of

119: Astronomy, Austin, TX 78712; wheel@astro.as.utexas.edu}

120: 

121: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

122: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

123: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

124: %% affiliation.

125: 

126: %\altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.

127: %CTIO is operated by AURA, Inc.\ under contract to the National Science

128: %Foundation.}

129: %\altaffiltext{2}{Society of Fellows, Harvard University.}

130: %\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,

131: %    60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

132: %\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}

133: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}

134: 

135: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

136: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

137: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

138: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

139: %% editorial office after submission.

140: 

141: \begin{abstract}

142: We present a new, detailed analysis of late-time mid-infrared (IR)

143: observations of the Type~II-P supernova (SN) 2003gd. At about 16~months

144: after the explosion, the mid-IR flux is consistent with emission from

145: $4\times10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$ of newly condensed dust in the ejecta.

146: At 22~months emission from point-like sources close to the SN position

147: was detected at 8~$\mu$m and 24~$\mu$m. By 42~months the 24~$\mu$m

148: flux had faded.  Considerations of luminosity and source size rule out

149: the ejecta of SN~2003gd as the main origin of the emission at

150: 22~months.  A possible alternative explanation for the emission at

151: this later epoch is an IR~echo from pre-existing circumstellar or

152: interstellar dust.  We conclude that, contrary to the claim of

153: \citet{sug06}, the mid-IR emission from SN~2003gd does not support the

154: presence of 0.02~M$_{\odot}$ of newly formed dust in the ejecta.

155: There is, as yet, no direct evidence that core-collapse supernovae are

156: major dust factories.

157: \end{abstract}

158: 

159: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

160: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

161: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

162: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

163: 

164: \keywords{supernovae: general ---

165: supernovae: individual (\objectname{SN 2003gd})}

166: 

167: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

168: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

169: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

170: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

171: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

172: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

173: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

174: %% each reference.

175: 

176: 

177: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper

178: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging

179: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}.  Each macro takes the

180: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket 

181: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification

182: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.  The text appearing 

183: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper. 

184: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked

185: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers  

186: %%

187: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,

188: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first

189: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).

190: %%  Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error. 

191: 

192: \section{Introduction}

193: Massive stars explode via core collapse and ejection of their

194: surrounding layers (e.g., Arnett et al. 1989, and references therein).

195: The extent to which core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) are, or have

196: been, a major source of dust in the universe is of great interest.

197: For many years it has been hypothesized that the physical conditions

198: in the expanding ejecta of CCSNe could result in the condensation of

199: large masses of dust grains

200: \citep{cer67,hoy70,geh89,tie90,dwe98,tod01,noz03}.  This follows from

201: the fact that large abundances of suitable refractory elements are

202: present. In addition, cooling by adiabatic expansion and molecular

203: emission takes place, and dynamical instabilities can produce density

204: enhancements or ``clumping.''  This, in turn, will aid dust formation

205: through the effects of cooling and self-shielding.  Further support

206: for these ideas is provided by isotopic anomalies in meteorites which

207: indicate that some grains must have formed in CCSNe \citep{cla97}. \\

208: 

209: Interest in CCSNe as dust producers has increased recently due to the

210: problem of accounting for the presence of dust at high redshifts

211: \citep{fal89,fal96,pei91,pet97,ber03}.  In these early eras, much less

212: dust production from novae and asymptotic giant branch stars is

213: expected since fewer stars will have evolved past the main-sequence

214: phase.  Consequently, CCSNe arising from Population~III stars have

215: been proposed as the main early-universe source of dust

216: \citep{tod01,noz03}.  Models of dust formation in CCSNe

217: \citep{tod01,noz03} succeed in producing copious amounts of dust ---

218: around 0.1--1~M$_{\odot}$ even in the low-metallicity environments at

219: high redshifts.  This corresponds to a supernova (SN) dust

220: condensation efficiency of about 0.2 \citep{mor03}, where the

221: efficiency is defined as the dust mass divided by the total mass of

222: refractory elements.  This is enough to account for the quantity of

223: dust seen at high redshifts (see Appendix). \\

224: 

225: Newly condensed dust in CCSNe can be detected by its attenuating

226: effects on optical/near-infrared (IR) light or via thermal emission

227: from the grains in the ejecta.  These methods have been used in

228: attempts to measure the dust productivity of CCSNe.  Both methods are

229: subject to uncertainties due to dust formation in optically thick

230: clumps, so the derived masses tend to be just lower limits.  By far

231: the most extensive evidence for ejecta dust condensation is that

232: obtained from the peculiar Type~II SN~1987A, where both techniques

233: were employed \citep{dan89,luc89,mei89,whi89,sun90,dwe92,roc93,woo93,erc07}.

234: However, even the highest value obtained is only

235: $7.5\times10^{-4}$~M$_{\odot}$ \citep{erc07}.  \citet{poz04} used the

236: attenuation method to infer a dust mass exceeding

237: $2\times10^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$ in the Type~IIn SN~1998S. However, such

238: events are relatively rare. Moreover, in this case it is suggested

239: that the dust condensation was not in the body of the ejecta, but

240: rather took place in the cool, dense shell produced by the impact of

241: the SN ejecta with circumstellar material (CSM).  We note also that an

242: alternative IR-echo scenario for SN~1998S is not ruled out

243: \citep{ger02,poz04}.  \\

244: 

245: Prior to the launch of the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope} (hereafter,

246: {\it Spitzer}), the only evidence of dust condensation in a typical

247: CCSN was presented by \citet{elm03}, who used optical line attenuation

248: to infer a dust mass lower limit of about $10^{-4}$~M$_{\odot}$ in the

249: Type II-plateau (II-P) SN~1999em.  Mid-IR studies of the Cassiopeia~A

250: supernova remnant (SNR) \citep{dwe87,lag96,dou01} indicate that dust

251: formation took place during its explosion, but again the mass of

252: directly observed dust is small.  Sub-millimeter studies of this SNR

253: by \citet{dun03} using SCUBA led them to claim that at least

254: 2~M$_\odot$ of dust formed in the supernova.  However, \citet{kra04}

255: have used the same data together with observations from {\it Spitzer}

256: to show that most of this emission originates from a line-of-sight

257: molecular cloud, and not from dust formed in Cas~A. \citet{tem06} used

258: {\it Spitzer} observations to estimate $10^{-3}-10^{-2}$~M$_\odot$ of

259: dust in the Crab Nebula SNR. While rather uncertain, this result may

260: be more relevant to this paper than that of Cas~A, since the Crab

261: Nebula is thought to have arisen from a progenitor of mass

262: 8--10~M$_\odot$ \citep{nom82,kit06}, similar to that of the CCSN

263: studied here (SN~2003gd). \\

264: 

265: In summary, prior to the launch of {\it Spitzer}, direct observations

266: of CCSNe or SNRs have never revealed more than

267: $\sim$10$^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$ of dust --- only $\sim$1\% of the mass

268: required if CCSNe are to be important dust sources.  But the number of

269: CCSNe investigated for dust production is small, and with the

270: exception of SN~1999em, rather atypical.  The availability of {\it

271: Spitzer} has provided an excellent opportunity for us to test the

272: ubiquity of dust condensation in a statistically significant number of

273: typical CCSNe.  It provides high-sensitivity imaging over the mid-IR,

274: covering the likely peak of the dust thermal emission spectrum. This

275: can provide a superior measure of the total flux, temperature and,

276: possibly, dust emissivity than can be achieved at shorter wavelengths.

277: Moreover, the longer-wavelength coverage of {\it Spitzer} lets us

278: detect cooler grains and see more deeply into dust clumps than was

279: previously possible for typical nearby CCSNe.  In addition,

280: multi-epoch observations with {\it Spitzer} can distinguish between

281: dust condensation and IR~echoes via the strength and shape of the

282: light curve. \\

283: 

284: In this paper we analyze {\it Spitzer} observations of the Type~II-P

285: SN~2003gd at three late-time epochs. \citet{hen05} and \citet{sug06}

286: (henceforth ``S06'') reported optical attenuation effects in the

287: late-time spectra and $BR$ light curves of SN~2003gd which indicate

288: dust condensation in this event.  Using {\it Spitzer} observations at

289: two late-time epochs, S06 also report mid-IR emission from the

290: condensing dust.  This was the first-ever report of condensing dust in

291: a SN~II-P on the basis of thermal emission from the grains. Here we

292: present a new study of these {\it Spitzer} observations.  We agree

293: with S06 that some of the earlier-epoch mid-IR emission was due to a

294: modest quantity of ejecta dust.  However, we find that their principal

295: conclusion, that the later-epoch observations indicate the presence of

296: 0.02~M$_\odot$ of dust formed in the ejecta, is not supported by the

297: data.  Consequently, thus far there is no direct evidence that CCSNe

298: are major dust factories.

299: 

300: \section{Observations}

301: SN~2003gd was discovered \citep{eva03} on 2003 June 12 (UT dates are

302: used throughout this paper) in the SA(s)c galaxy NGC~628 (M74).  On

303: 2003 June 13 it was identified as a Type~II event \citep{gar03} using

304: a $J$-band spectrum. On 2003 June 14 the identification was confirmed

305: using optical spectra, and it was estimated that the SN was roughly

306: 1~month \citep{phi03} or 2~months \citep{kot03} post-explosion at the

307: time of discovery.  Using light-curve comparison with other SNe~II-P,

308: it was deduced \citep{vdy03,hen05} that SN~2003gd was a normal

309: Type~II-P event with estimated explosion dates of, respectively, 2003

310: March $17\pm3$ \citep{vdy03} or $18\pm21$ \citep{hen05}.  We adopt

311: 2003 March~17 as the explosion date, 87~days pre-discovery.  \\

312: 

313: On the basis of a variety of methods (standardized candle method,

314: brightest supergiants, kinematic) a distance to SN~2003gd of

315: $9.3\pm1.8$~Mpc was found \citep{hen05}. Modelling of the light echo

316: of SN~2003gd \citep{vdy06} suggests a somewhat smaller distance of

317: about 7~Mpc. S06 adopted 9.3~Mpc, and so for ease of comparison with

318: their work we shall adopt 9.3~Mpc throughout.  Total extinction

319: (Galactic + host galaxy) estimates of $E(B-V)=0.13 \pm 0.03$~mag

320: \citep{vdy03} and $E(B-V)=0.14\pm0.06$~mag \citep{hen05} were

321: reported.  Using two independent methods (bolometric luminosity of

322: exponential tail; direct comparison with SN~1987A bolometric light

323: curve), Hendry \etal estimate an ejected $^{56}$Ni mass of

324: 0.016$^{+0.010}_{-0.006}$~M$_{\odot}$, only about a fifth of the

325: $^{56}$Ni mass found in SN~1987A \citep{whi88,bou91}.  The progenitor

326: star was identified in archival images from the {\it Hubble Space

327: Telescope}, the 2.6-m Nordic Optical Telescope, and Gemini North, as a

328: red supergiant of mass 6--12~M$_{\odot}$ \citep{vdy03,sma04}.\\

329: 

330: The field of SN~2003gd was observed with {\it Spitzer's} Infrared

331: Array Camera ({\it IRAC}) at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0~$\mu$m on 2004

332: July 25 and 28 (days 496 and 499) and again on 2005 January 15

333: (day~670).  The first two SN observations were obtained

334: serendipitously within the {\it Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies

335: Survey (SINGS)} (PID: 0159) \citep{ken03}.  In the {\it SINGS} program

336: observations are duplicated with a delay of a few days, to permit

337: identification of asteroids and to better sample the emission on

338: subpixel scales \citep{reg04}.  In each wavelength channel the two

339: images are combined to yield an ``Enhanced Data Product,'' and these

340: are publicly available from the NED database.  The 2005 January

341: observation was obtained within our {\it Spitzer} supernova program

342: (PID: 3248).  The {\it SINGS} program also used the {\it Multiband

343: Imaging Spectrometer for Spitzer (MIPS)} to acquire images of the

344: field of SN~2003gd at 24~$\mu$m on 2005 January 23 and 26 (days 678

345: and 681). In our measurement and analysis of the days 496/9, 670, and

346: 678/81 observations, we used the same data as were available to S06.

347: SN~2003gd was again observed at 24~$\mu$m within the {\it Spitzer}

348: supernova program of Sugerman \etal (PID:~30494) on 2006~September~1

349: (day~1264). Subsequent to the initial submission of this paper, Dr. Ben

350: Sugerman kindly made this image available to us. We therefore also

351: consider the implications of this observation.

352: 

353: \section{Results}

354: A point source at the SN position is clearly visible in the day~496/9

355: image in all four {\it IRAC} channels, with strong fading by

356: day~670. This is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig1}(a,b), where we show

357: the 8~$\mu$m {\it IRAC} images from day~496/9 and day~670.  Given the

358: large decline in flux, we deduce that most of the point-source flux

359: detected on day~496/9 was due to the SN.  However, measurement of the

360: SN flux is challenging owing to the bright, complex field within which

361: it lies.

362: 

363: \subsection{Day~496/9 Results}

364: 

365: \subsubsection{PSF-Fitting Measurements}

366: We used the {\it SNOOPY} point-spread function (PSF) fitting package

367: to determine the SN fluxes and coordinates.  {\it SNOOPY} was

368: originally designed by F. Patat to carry out SN photometry. It was

369: implemented in IRAF by E. Cappellaro and is based on DAOPHOT, and has

370: been tested and improved over a number of years.  Several suitable PSF

371: stars are selected in order to build the model PSF and measure the

372: full-width at half-maximum intensity (FWHM). First a polynomial

373: surface, of orders between 3 and 6 in $x$ and $y$, is fitted to the

374: background in a $(10 \times {\rm FWHM}) \times (10 \times {\rm FWHM})$ 

375: region centered on the SN position, excluding the innermost square region

376: around the SN, of side $\sim1.5 \times {\rm FWHM}$.  This is then subtracted

377: from the image. Next the PSF fitting is performed on the SN.  The

378: fitted PSF is subsequently subtracted from the data to produce a

379: residual image.  This is inspected by eye, and the fitting procedure

380: repeated until a residual image is obtained where there is little sign

381: of the original point source. The code returns the $x$ and $y$

382: position and the flux within the PSF.  It also provides a statistical

383: uncertainty which is a measure of how well the model PSF describes the flux

384: value and distribution at the SN position.  However, the flux values

385: are quite sensitive to the fitting of the image background with the

386: polynomial surface.  This may introduce an additional uncertainty in

387: the absolute flux values, although the effect on the shape of the

388: spectral energy distribution is likely to be less than this. \\

389: 

390: The results and estimated uncertainties are shown in Table \ref{tab1}.

391: As a check of the PSF-fitting procedure, field stars were also

392: measured using both this method and aperture photometry. The aperture

393: radius was $10\arcsec$ with a 15--20$\arcsec$ concentric sky annulus.

394: No significant systematic flux difference was found between the two

395: methods at any wavelength.  The root-mean-square (rms) scatter in the

396: differences was 0.05--0.18~mag. The rms scatter at each wavelength was

397: adopted as the uncertainty. As a further check, we performed aperture

398: photometry for three stars in both post-basic calibrated data (PBCD)

399: and SINGS-processed {\it IRAC} 8~$\mu$m frames, and found that the

400: photometry agrees to within 5\%. This test was also applied to the

401: day~678/81 {\it MIPS} 24~$\mu$m frames (see below) and similar

402: consistency was obtained.

403: 

404: \subsubsection{Image-Subtraction Measurements}

405: We also determined the {\it difference} in the fluxes between

406: day~496/9 and day~670 via image subtraction.  While this only gives

407: the change in flux between the two epochs, it is a particularly

408: powerful method of removing the effects of a spatially varying

409: background such as is encountered in SN images from {\it Spitzer}

410: \citep{mei06}. Also, given the very weak flux at the SN location on

411: day~670, this procedure provides a robust check on the net supernova

412: emission. \\

413: 

414: For each channel, the day~670 image (PBCD processed) was subtracted

415: from the earlier Enhanced Data Product SINGS image through the use of

416: image matching and subtraction techniques as implemented in the

417: ISIS~2.2 image-subtraction package \citep{ala00}.  The 8.0~$\mu$m

418: subtracted image is shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}(c).  In \citet{mei06} we

419: demonstrate the applicability of the image-subtraction technique for

420: {\it Spitzer/IRAC} SN data and investigate its uncertainties.

421: Aperture photometry of the subtracted images was then carried out

422: using the Starlink package {\sc gaia} \citep{dra02}.  A circular

423: aperture of radius $2\farcs25$ was used for the photometry. This

424: aperture was chosen as a compromise between maximizing the sampled

425: fraction of source flux (the radius of the first diffraction minimum

426: at the extreme red end of the 8.0~$\mu$m channel is $\sim2\farcs6$)

427: and minimizing any extended residual emission in the subtracted image.

428: Aperture corrections were derived from the {\it IRAC} PSF images

429: available on the {\it Spitzer} website. The correction factors were

430: 1.23, 1.26, 1.50, and 1.65 for 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0~$\mu$m,

431: respectively. \\

432: 

433: For each measurement, the aperture was centered on the SN image using

434: a combination of centroid estimates and visual inspection.  The

435: residual background level was measured using a clipped mean sky

436: estimator and a concentric sky annulus having respective inner and

437: outer radii of 1.5 and 2.8 times the aperture radius.  The results are

438: shown in Table \ref{tab1}.  The uncertainty was determined from the

439: sky variance within the sky annulus. These error estimates were

440: confirmed by measuring the variance in the (day~496~--~day~499)

441: subtracted frame for each band, assuming a similar underlying error in

442: the unsubtracted day~670 frame, and appropriately combining the two

443: errors.  These uncertainties are quoted in Table \ref{tab1}. However,

444: it is likely that additional systematic errors were present due to

445: image-matching uncertainties.\\

446: 

447: At 3.6~$\mu$m, 4.5~$\mu$m, and 5.8~$\mu$m the flux differences between

448: the two methods all have less than $3\sigma$ significance (see Table

449: \ref{tab1}). At 8.0~$\mu$m the difference is over $4\sigma$. As

450: discussed below, we attribute this significant difference to the

451: presence of a residual source in the day~670 image.  In Table

452: \ref{tab1} we also show the PSF-derived {\it IRAC} fluxes obtained by

453: S06 for day~496/9.  There is reasonable consistency with our PSF

454: results, although at 8.0~$\mu$m we see a higher flux at a significance

455: of just under $3\sigma$.  Given the complexity of the field this

456: difference is, perhaps, not too surprising.

457: 

458: \subsection{Days~670, 678/81 Results}

459: On day~670, there was no detectable source at or near the SN position

460: at 3.6~$\mu$m, 4.5~$\mu$m, or 5.8~$\mu$m.  However, sources were

461: detected near the SN position at 8.0~$\mu$m on day~670 and 24~$\mu$m

462: on day~678/81 (see Figure \ref{fig1}).  We compared the positions of

463: these sources with that of the SN.  The coordinates of the SN were

464: measured by applying PSF fitting (using {\it SNOOPY}) to the

465: subtracted 8~$\mu$m image (which was in the coordinate system of the

466: day~496/9 SINGS image).  For this, we used the PSF obtained from the

467: day 496/9 8~$\mu$m (SINGS) image which has a PSF identical to that of

468: the subtracted image.  We also measured the SN coordinates in the same

469: image using three other methods: centroiding, optimal filtering, and

470: Gaussian fitting as implemented in the IRAF CENTER task. The mean and

471: standard deviation of the results from these four methods were adopted

472: as the SN position and uncertainty, respectively. \\

473: 

474: To convert the SN coordinates to the day~670 {\it IRAC} and day~678/81

475: {\it MIPS} images, we derived geometric transformations between these

476: images and the day~496/9 8~$\mu$m SINGS image.  The transformation

477: between the day~496/9 and day~670 8~$\mu$m images was obtained using

478: the centroid coordinates of 20 isolated sources visible in both

479: frames. We used IRAF GEOMAP to derive a general transformation

480: including shifts, scales, and rotations in $x$ and $y$, and a

481: second-order polynomial for the nonlinear part. The transformation

482: between the day~496/9 8~$\mu$m SINGS image and the 24~$\mu$m {\it

483: MIPS} image was obtained in a similar manner, using the centroid

484: coordinates of 20 isolated sources visible in both frames.  \\

485: 

486: To measure the coordinates of the 8~$\mu$m and 24~$\mu$m sources

487: detected near the SN position, we again used PSF fitting ({\it

488: SNOOPY}). The associated uncertainties were estimated by simulating

489: point sources using a Gaussian PSF with a flux similar to the faint

490: source. Artificial sources were placed in each of the images at nine

491: positions where the background was judged to have a similar level and

492: complexity to that of the SN location. The coordinates of these

493: sources were measured with PSF fitting using the same polynomial

494: orders for modelling the background as for the actual 8~$\mu$m and

495: 24~$\mu$m sources.  Finally, the measured coordinates were compared

496: with the known positions of the simulated sources and the standard

497: deviations of their offsets were adopted as the uncertainties in our

498: coordinate measurements. \\

499: 

500: Our conclusion from the above astrometric measurements is that the

501: 8~$\mu$m source coincides with the SN position to within $1\arcsec$

502: (90\% confidence), and the 24~$\mu$m source coincides with the SN

503: position to within $2\arcsec$ (90\% confidence) i.e. in both cases the

504: coincidence is to within 1 native pixel ($1\farcs2$ at 8~$\mu$m,

505: $2\farcs5$ at 24~$\mu$m). The bulk of the position coincidence

506: uncertainty arose from the PSF fitting to the days~670-81 sources with

507: a smaller contribution from the co-ordinate transformation and a

508: negligible contribution from measuring the position of the SN on

509: day~496/9. \\

510: 

511: We measured the fluxes of the days~670--81 sources using our

512: PSF-fitting procedure, obtaining $73 \pm 7~\mu$Jy at 8.0~$\mu$m and

513: $380 \pm 90~\mu$Jy at 24.0~$\mu$m.  The 8.0~$\mu$m flux is consistent

514: with the $77 \pm 17~\mu$Jy difference in the flux between the

515: day~496/9 image and the subtracted image (see Table 1), indicating

516: that the difference was due to the residual source in the day~670

517: image.  The sensitivity on day~670 and day~678/81 is dominated by the

518: effects of the bright nearby sources on the PSF fitting.  For the

519: other three {\it IRAC} channels, upper limits were obtained based on

520: direct PSF measurements of the day~670 images and on the difference

521: between the day~496/9 images and subtracted images.  Our $2\sigma$

522: upper limits at 3.6~$\mu$m, 4.5~$\mu$m, and 5.8~$\mu$m are,

523: respectively, $10~\mu$Jy, $20~\mu$Jy, and $35~\mu$Jy, rounded to the

524: nearest 5~$\mu$Jy.

525: 

526: \subsection{Day~1264 result}

527: As indicated in Section~2, we were recently given access to the PBCD

528: 24~$\mu$m {\it MIPS} image of SN~2003gd obtained within the Sugerman

529: et al. {\it Spitzer} program (PID:~30494) on day~1264.  Visual

530: inspection suggests that the source near the SN position had faded

531: since day~678/81. To investigate this more quantitatively, we

532: subtracted the day~1264 image from the day~678/81 data using the

533: procedures described in \S 3.1.2.

534: 

535: We performed the subtraction on both the {\it SINGS}-processed

536: day~678/81 image (pixel size $1\farcs5$) and on the two original PBCD

537: images with the native pixel scale of $2\farcs5$ (an average of the

538: native scale subtracted images was formed).  A discrete source close

539: to the SN position was observed in both subtractions.  Aperture

540: photometry of the source was carried out using a $6\farcs1$ radius

541: aperture. The background was determined by using concentric sky annuli

542: in the ratio 1.5:2 of the aperture radius, and also by placing the

543: aperture (without sky annuli) at a number of positions in a

544: $2' \times 0.5'$ box centered on the SN. The uncertainty was

545: estimated from the rms value of the aperture values in the second

546: method. The whole procedure was then repeated with a $4\farcs4$

547: aperture radius.  Generally consistent results were obtained. The mean

548: flux measured was $295\pm70~\mu$Jy.  We conclude that it seems likely

549: that the day~678/81 24~$\mu$m source faded significantly by day 1264.\\

550: 

551: \section{Analysis}

552: The mid-IR fluxes for SN~2003gd at day~496/9 (Table \ref{tab1}) are

553: plotted in Figure \ref{fig2}.  The crossbars give the {\it IRAC}

554: filter bands and the flux error bars are $1\sigma$.  We show both the

555: PSF-derived points and those derived by image subtraction.  Also shown

556: are $BVRI$ points obtained on day~493 \citep{hen05} adjusted to

557: day~496/9 using the SN~1987A light curves.  All the SN~2003gd points

558: were dereddened using the \citet{car89} extinction law with $R_V =

559: 3.1$ and $E(B-V) = 0.135$~mag \citep{hen05}. \\

560: 

561: There is clearly a strong mid-IR excess.  The IR excess might be

562: produced by an IR~echo from circumstellar dust, but S06 argue that the

563: decline rate is too high to be a typical IR echo. We find that it is,

564: in fact, possible to reproduce the decline rate using a simple IR~echo

565: model \citep{mei06} with a modest dust shell, although the shell

566: parameters have to lie within quite a narrow range.  Without more

567: extensive temporal coverage, it is not possible to conclusively

568: eliminate a significant IR~echo contribution to the mid-IR emission at

569: day~496/9.  However, the observed optical attenuation effects

570: \citep{hen05,sug06} show that some dust condensation in the ejecta

571: must have taken place. In addition, there is no sign of radio

572: emission, implying a paucity of circumstellar matter \citep{vdy03}.

573: Consideration of the deposited radioactive energy also tends to

574: support dust condensation at this epoch (see below).  Given these

575: facts, plus the need for a rather specific CSM shell geometry for an

576: IR echo to reproduce the decline rate between day~496/9 and day~670,

577: we proceed on the assumption that the day~496/9 mid-IR flux was

578: probably dominated by emission from newly formed dust in the ejecta.

579: 

580: \subsection{Comparison of SN~2003gd on Day~496/9 with SN~1987A}

581: In order to interpret further the day~496/9 mid-IR emission from

582: SN~2003gd, ideally we would compare its spectral energy distribution

583: (SED) with similar-epoch spectra from a sample of SNe~II-P, but such a

584: database covering the 3--9~$\mu$m range does not yet exist. The only

585: pre-{\it Spitzer} 3--9~$\mu$m CCSN spectra are for SN~1987A.  While

586: SN~1987A was initially atypical (it arose from a blue supergiant

587: star), its nebular optical/near-IR behavior has been shown

588: \citep{poz06} to be more similar to that of a normal SN~II-P such as

589: SN~2002hh.  In addition, quite similar mid-IR spectral behavior has

590: been found for SN~1987A and the Type~II-P SNe 2004dj and 2005af around

591: days~200--250 \citep{kot06}.  Only in the [Ar~III] 6.99~$\mu$m line is

592: significantly different behavior detected.  We conclude that the

593: nebular mid-IR behavior of SN~1987A is similar to that of Type~II-P

594: events like SN~2003gd. \\

595: 

596: For comparison with SN~2003gd, we used SN~1987A spectra at

597: 0.3--1.1~$\mu$m [SUSPECT database and \citet{pun95}], 1.05--4.1~$\mu$m

598: \citep{mei93}, and 4.3--13.0~$\mu$m \citep{bou93,roc93,woo93}.  We

599: used data from SN~1987A epochs as follows: optical/day~498,

600: near-IR/day~494, mid-IR/day~494 \citep{mei93}, day~517 \citep{roc93},

601: and day~518 \citep{bou93}.  This still left the blue half of the

602: 8.0~$\mu$m band unrepresented. To fill in this gap, which includes the

603: strong [Ni~II]~6.63~$\mu$m line, we used the day~415 SN~1987A KAO

604: spectrum \citep{woo93}, scaled and shifted to match the day~517/8

605: spectra in the overlap regions (4.5--5.3, 7.8--12~$\mu$m).  All the

606: spectra were dereddened. In addition, to convert the spectra to the

607: SN~2003gd epochs, small scaling adjustments were made using the

608: SN~1987A light curves.  The SN~1987A spectra were then scaled by $2.9

609: \times 10^{-5}$ and 0.21 to compensate, respectively, for the

610: distance and $^{56}$Ni mass differences between the two SNe. \\

611: 

612: Following all these adjustments, we found that the optical spectrum

613: showed good consistency with the SN~2003gd photometry at both

614: epochs. However, to match the SN~2003gd fluxes in the region of the IR

615: excess (3--13~$\mu$m), we had to further increase the SN~1987A

616: spectral fluxes by a factor of 2.0 for the image-subtracted points,

617: and by a factor of 3.1 for the PSF-derived points.  A compromise

618: factor of 2.8 was applied (Fig. \ref{fig2}). \\

619: 

620: Comparison of the coeval SN~1987A IR spectrum with the day~496/9

621: SN~2003gd photometry (Fig. \ref{fig2}) shows that much of the {\it

622: IRAC} fluxes are likely to be due to emission from CO

623: ($\sim$4.8~$\mu$m), SiO ($\sim$8.2~$\mu$m), fine-structure lines, and

624: Br$~\alpha$. In the Kuiper Airborne Observatory (KAO) study of

625: SN~1987A \citep{woo93}, barely 20\% of the fluxes corresponding to the

626: {\it IRAC} 4.5~$\mu$m and 8.0~$\mu$m bands were ascribed to emission

627: from ejecta dust. On the other hand, in SN~2003gd the 4.5~$\mu$m point

628: is not as far above the continuum as one might expect given the level

629: of the SN~1987A CO emission.  A similar, but less pronounced, effect

630: may be apparent at 8~$\mu$m.  This suggests that, while the factor of

631: 2.8 scaling is appropriate to match the IR continua of SN~1987A to

632: that of SN~2003gd, it exaggerates the line and molecular emission from

633: the latter SN. Nevertheless, the non-dust contributions to the

634: 4.5~$\mu$m and 8.0~$\mu$m fluxes of SN~2003gd are probably still

635: significant, so these points should not be used for matching any dust

636: emission model.  In contrast, the 3.6~$\mu$m and 5.8~$\mu$m fluxes lie

637: quite close to the SN~1987A continuum.  Given that this continuum was

638: due to emission from ejecta dust, we conclude that these points

639: provide a fair measure of the emission from newly formed dust in

640: SN~2003gd. We make use of these two points in matching the dust

641: emission model.

642: 

643: \subsection{Dust Mass at Day 496/9} 

644: To estimate the dust mass produced in SN~2003gd, we compared a simple

645: analytical IR-emission model with the observed SEDs.  An additional

646: component was added to represent continuum emission from hot,

647: optically thick gas in the ejecta.  To select the likely grain density

648: distribution and grain materials for the dust emission model, we

649: sought guidance from dust condensation calculations and the explosion

650: models upon which they are based.  Only a few papers have been

651: published which describe SN dust condensation based on explosion

652: models.  Such papers fall into two categories: SN~1987A, and

653: high-redshift low-metallicity progenitor SNe. No calculations for

654: local Type~II-P events have been published. We judge the SN~1987A dust

655: models as probably being the more relevant. \\

656: 

657: \citet{koz89} and \citet{tod01} have calculated dust condensation

658: within the ejecta of SN~1987A. These authors used the ejecta chemical

659: composition as determined in nucleosynthesis models

660: \citep{has89,nom91}.  Both sets of authors adopted complete chemical

661: mixing within the dust-forming zone.  Within this zone Todini \&

662: Ferrara assumed a uniform density distribution.  \citet{koz89} used

663: the density profile from an explosion model \citep{has89} but this

664: also is roughly flat.  Similar dust-type abundances were obtained by

665: both sets of authors, but neither make explicit predictions about the

666: dust distribution within the ejecta. Recent three-dimensional CCSN 

667: explosion models \citep{kif06} confirm that extensive mixing of the core 

668: takes place. The same models also show that the density structure is likely

669: to be exceedingly complex, with high-density clumps moving out through

670: lower-density gas.  How this affects the dust distribution has yet to

671: be determined.  \\

672: 

673: Given the current state of knowledge, we assume that dust of uniform

674: number density forms throughout the zone containing abundant

675: refractory elements. The extent of this zone can be assessed using the

676: late-time widths of metal lines.  In the day~493 optical spectrum of

677: SN~2003gd \citep{hen05}, the maximum velocities implied by the metal

678: lines generally do not exceed $\sim$2000~km~s$^{-1}$. This upper limit

679: is adopted as the size of the dust-forming region.  The uniform

680: density assumption is conservative in that it provides the least

681: effective way of hiding dust grains in optically thick regions.

682: Guided by the dust-formation calculations \citep{koz89,tod01,noz03},

683: we included silicate, amorphous carbon, and magnetite dust in the mass

684: ratios 0.68/0.16/0.16. The mass absorption functions for the three

685: materials were taken from the literature \citep{lao93,rou91,koi81}. \\

686: 

687: Our dust IR-emission model comprises a uniform sphere of isothermal

688: dust grains.  Following the escape probability formalism

689: \citep{ost89,luc89}, the luminosity ($L_{\nu}$) of the sphere at 

690: frequency $\nu$ is given by

691: \begin{equation}

692: L_{\nu}= 2\pi^2R^2B_{\nu}(T)[\tau_{\nu}^{-2}(2\tau_{\nu}^2-1+(2\tau_{\nu}+1)e^{-2\tau_{\nu}})],

693: \end{equation}

694: where $R$ is the radius of the dust sphere at some time after the

695: explosion, $B_{\nu}(T)$ is the Planck function at temperature $T$, and

696: $\tau_\nu$ is the optical depth to the center at frequency $\nu$.  For

697: a grain size distribution $dn =ka^{-m}da$, where $dn$ is the number

698: density of grains having radius $a \to a+da$, $m$ is typically between

699: 2 and 4, and $k$ is the grain number density scaling factor, it can

700: be shown that $\tau_\nu=\frac{4}{3}\pi

701: k\rho\kappa_{\nu}R\frac{1}{4-m}[a^{4-m}_{max}-a^{4-m}_{min}]$, where $\rho$

702: and $\kappa_{\nu}$ are, respectively, the density and mass absorption

703: coefficient of the grain material.  The grain size distribution law

704: was set at $m=3.5$ \citep{mat77} with $a_{min}=0.005~\mu$m and

705: $a_{max}=0.05~\mu$m.  The total mass of dust, $M_d$, was then found

706: from $M_d=4\pi R^2\tau_\nu/3\kappa_\nu$ \citep{luc89}.  \\

707: 

708: The model-free parameters are the grain temperature, sphere radius,

709: and grain number density scaling factor, $k$.  These were adjusted to

710: reproduce just the 3.6~$\mu$m and 5.8~$\mu$m points.  \citet{woo93}

711: showed that during the second year of SN~1987A, the dust-emission

712: continuum could be contaminated by blackbody emission from hot,

713: optically thick gas, as well as by free-bound radiation. Here we

714: represent both effects using a single hot blackbody.  The hot

715: component was adjusted to match the underlying continuum of the scaled

716: SN~1987A optical spectrum and {\it not} the broad-band points of

717: SN~2003gd, which would contain a significant contribution from the many

718: strong emission lines.  We found that the effect of the hot component

719: on emission longward of 3~$\mu$m was small.  \\

720: 

721: Model matches to both the PSF-fitting and image-subtraction-derived

722: fluxes were obtained.  The dust emission models are shown in Figure

723: \ref{fig2}.  We found that to achieve reasonable matches to the data

724: it was necessary to increase the dust mass until it was optically

725: thick in the mid-IR. Consequently, we were unable to derive a unique

726: dust mass since, as we increase the optical depth, ever larger amounts

727: of dust can be ``hidden'' with little effect on the observed

728: radiation. We therefore, conservatively, sought the {\it minimum} dust

729: mass which would provide a satisfactory match to the data.  The model

730: parameters including the derived dust masses are given in Table

731: \ref{tab2}.\\

732: 

733: Dust masses of $6\times10^{-5}$~M$_{\odot}$ (PSF fitting, day~496/9

734: image) and $4\times10^{-5}$~M$_{\odot}$ (aperture photometry,

735: subtracted image) were obtained. A 1~Mpc reduction in distance reduces

736: the masses by about 10\%.  The uniform dust distribution of our model,

737: optically thick at 10~$\mu$m, would surely extinguish all metal lines

738: in the optical region. Yet, as late as day~493 \citep{hen05} and

739: day~521 \citep{sug06}, such lines could still be seen. This implies

740: that the dust distribution must have been ``clumpy,'' allowing some of

741: the optical line radiation to escape from the nebula.  The presence of

742: clumping is confirmed by consideration of the ``covering factor,''

743: $f$.  This is obtained by dividing the projected area of the model

744: dust sphere by the projected area corresponding to the estimated

745: extent of the dust-forming zone (2000~km~s$^{-1}$).  A covering

746: factor of $\sim$0.15 was obtained (Table \ref{tab2}). This may also

747: account for the relatively modest extinctions in the $R$ band

748: \citep{sug06}.  We note that SN~1987A showed strong evidence for dust

749: clumping \citep{luc91}.  In Section~5, we suggest that, in general, SN

750: ejecta dust becomes optically thick in the mid-IR when the dust mass

751: exceeds only a few times $10^{-3}$~M$_\odot$. \\

752: 

753: It is argued above that the 8~$\mu$m point should not be used for

754: constraining the dust model due to possible contamination by SiO

755: emission. Nevertheless, we investigated the effect of including this

756: point and found that satisfactory matches can be obtained using

757: somewhat lower temperatures and higher radii for the model.  Similar

758: dust masses are derived. However, the match to the SN~1987A spectrum

759: redward of 8~$\mu$m is very poor, with the model flux exceeding the

760: continuum flux by about a factor of two. Given the argument in

761: \S~4.1 that the nebular behavior of SNe~1987A and 2003gd is

762: similar, we conclude that SiO is indeed contaminating the SN~2003gd

763: spectrum.\\

764: 

765: The total luminosity of our dust model (for the match to the

766: PSF-derived fluxes) plus the estimated total optical/near-IR

767: contribution (i.e. line/molecular emission plus underlying continuum)

768: is $2.1 \times 10^{39}$~erg~s$^{-1}$, with roughly 30\% of the

769: luminosity arising from the dust.  The $^{56}$Ni mass inferred by

770: \citet{hen05} is 0.016$^{+0.010}_{-0.006}$~M$_{\odot}$.  Dividing the

771: observed total luminosity by the radioactive decay energy deposited in

772: the ejecta \citep{li93}, scaled to the $^{56}$Ni mass of SN~2003gd, we

773: obtain 1.2$^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$. Thus, the total luminosity is similar to

774: that resulting from the deposited radioactive energy. This tends to

775: support the proposition that newly condensed ejecta dust was

776: responsible for the mid-IR continuum emission.  Use of a lower

777: distance would reduce the radioactive decay energy required to produce

778: the observed flux. However, this would not significantly affect the

779: energy constraints as the inferred $^{56}$Ni mass would also fall ---

780: that is, the {\it fraction} of radioactive decay luminosity required

781: to produce the observed flux would stay about the same.  The dust

782: masses we derive are about 25\% of the $2.0\times10^{-4}$~M$_{\odot}$

783: which S06 obtain from their smooth model fit at the same epoch

784: (day~496/9).  The S06 models are shown in Fig. \ref{fig2} (dashed

785: lines).  Between 3~$\mu$m and 10~$\mu$m their models are in

786: approximate agreement with ours, but at longer wavelengths our model

787: shows a much sharper decline.  It appears that the S06 model predicts

788: a component of colder dust and this would account for their larger

789: dust masses.  Their model invokes a source luminosity of $2.6 \times

790: 10^{39}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. This is $\sim$20\% larger than the value in our

791: model but is still consistent with the radioactive energy deposited,

792: given the uncertainties in the $^{56}$Ni mass.

793: 

794: \subsection{The Days~670-681 Sources}

795: S06 found a 24~$\mu$m flux on day~678/81 of $106 \pm 16~\mu$Jy.  They

796: also reported upper limits at 3.6~$\mu$m, 4.5~$\mu$m, 5.8~$\mu$m, and

797: 8.0~$\mu$m on day~670.  {\it It is from these later-epoch measurements

798: that they deduce a dust mass of $0.02$~M$_{\odot}$.}  As indicated

799: above, we also obtained no detection at 3.6~$\mu$m, 4.5~$\mu$m, and

800: 5.8~$\mu$m on day~670. However, at 8.0~$\mu$m we obtained a

801: significant detection in our PSF fitting of $73 \pm 7~\mu$Jy.

802: Moreover, inspection of Fig. \ref{fig1}(b) does appear to confirm the

803: presence of a source close to the SN position.  At 24~$\mu$m our

804: measured flux of $380 \pm 90~\mu$Jy (see above) is about a factor of 4

805: larger than that obtained by S06.  \\

806: 

807: To investigate this flux difference we assessed the day~678/81 {\it

808: MIPS} sensitivity at the source position using a number of methods.

809: The complex field in the SN vicinity makes direct noise estimation

810: quite difficult.  Therefore, to determine the underlying

811: pixel-to-pixel noise, we subtracted the day~681 image from the day~678

812: image using the procedures described above.  We then measured the

813: noise at the SN location.  We used a $6\farcs1$ radius aperture which

814: encompasses about 0.93 of the flux in the Airy disk at 24~$\mu$m. The

815: flux in the aperture was measured at a series of locations within

816: $40\arcsec$ of the SN position.  The rms value, after aperture

817: correction, is $\sim$200~$\mu$Jy. However, as the subtracted image

818: contained the noise of the two original images, we divided this by

819: $\sqrt2$, yielding 140~$\mu$Jy as the intrinsic sensitivity

820: ($1\sigma$) of the {\it MIPS} data.  A further $\sqrt2$ improvement of

821: the sensitivity to 100~$\mu$Jy arises from the fact that the

822: SINGS-processed image, used by S06 and ourselves for the PSF fitting,

823: is a combination of the two SINGS PBCD images.  \\

824: 

825: As a further check, we examined the {\it MIPS} sensitivity in the

826: SINGS-processed image well away from the galaxy in a relatively

827: ``clean'' part of the sky, lying about $4\arcmin$ south of the SN

828: location. Artificial stars were placed at 11 different positions

829: within a $1\arcmin \times 3\arcmin$ area.  The input star flux was set

830: at 130~$\mu$Jy and the flux at each of the 11 positions was measured

831: by aperture photometry, using a $6\farcs1$ radius aperture and a sky

832: annulus between 1.5 and 2 times this radius.  The effective

833: sensitivity was assessed from the dispersion in the flux values. The

834: procedure was repeated with an input star flux of 5300~$\mu$Jy.  The

835: dispersion in both the low-flux and high-flux cases gave about the

836: same result, indicating that even well away from the galaxy, the

837: sensitivity was background limited. The $1\sigma$ sensitivity, after

838: aperture correction, was found to be about 90~$\mu$Jy, similar to the

839: value obtained from image subtraction.  \\

840: 

841: As a final check on the above procedures, we used the {\it Spitzer

842: Sensitivity-Performance Estimation Tool (PET)} to estimate the

843: intrinsic sensitivity. The measured background near the SN is about

844: equivalent to the ``high background'' setting of the PET. From this we

845: derive an intrinsic $1\sigma$ sensitivity of 60~$\mu$Jy, of

846: similar magnitude to the directly-determined sensitivity values.  \\

847: 

848: We conclude that the actual $1\sigma$ sensitivity of the day~678/81

849: {\it MIPS} image at the SN position was $\sim$90~$\mu$Jy, much larger

850: than the 16~$\mu$Jy claimed by S06. Moreover, the 106~$\mu$Jy

851: flux at the SN position claimed by S06 would only yield a S/N

852: of about unity, not $\sim6.5$ as they reported.

853: However, we note that scaling the S06 result by a factor of 4 yields

854: $424 \pm 64$~$\mu$Jy.  This is more consistent with both our flux

855: value and with our separately measured {\it MIPS} sensitivity.  We

856: suspect, therefore, that there is an error in the 24~$\mu$m flux

857: reported by S06. \\

858: 

859: What is the origin of the 8~$\mu$m and 24~$\mu$m sources on

860: days~670--81?  Given the very crowded field within which the supernova

861: occurred, and the fact that CCSNe tend to occur near star-forming

862: regions, a cool background source lying close to the SN might be

863: considered.  A similar situation was described recently for {\it

864: Spitzer} observations of the CCSN SN~2002hh \citep{mei06}.  However,

865: the fading of the 24~$\mu$m source (\S~3.3) tends to rule out a

866: background source, at least for most of the 24~$\mu$m flux.  We shall

867: therefore consider the implications of assuming that the sources are

868: ultimately due to the SN. \\

869: 

870: We first hypothesize that the days~670-81 8~$\mu$m and (unsubtracted)

871: 24~$\mu$m sources have the same origin and that this origin is the SN

872: ejecta.  A simple blackbody match to our days~670-81 flux measurements

873: yields a temperature of 250~K, a radius of $1.9\times10^{16}$~cm, and

874: a luminosity of $9.7\times10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. This is immediately

875: problematic.  To attain a radius of $1.9\times10^{16}$~cm the material

876: at the outer limit of the blackbody would have to be travelling at

877: 3200~km~s$^{-1}$. This is substantially larger than the 2000~km~s$^{-1}$ 

878: limit on metal velocities indicated by late-time spectra. In addition, 

879: after adding an additional $1.1\times10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ due to the

880: optical/near-IR emission estimated from the optical photometry, we

881: obtain a total luminosity of $10.8\times10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$.  This

882: is a factor of 4 more than the total radioactive decay energy

883: deposited in the ejecta, according to the formula of \citet{li93},

884: scaled to the $^{56}$Ni mass of SN~2003gd. Indeed, it exceeds the {\it

885: total} radioactive luminosity (i.e., including escaping gamma rays) by

886: more than a factor of 2. Even allowing for the uncertainty in the

887: $^{56}$Ni mass, the energy deficit is severe.  (We note that, even

888: with their apparently underestimated 24~$\mu$m flux, the day~678/81

889: luminosity invoked by S06 exceeds the deposited radioactive energy by

890: $\sim$50\%.)  It is possible for the bolometric luminosity to exceed

891: that of the instantaneous radioactive decay deposition when the

892: recombination timescale exceeds the radioactive or expansion

893: timescales. However, this commences at much later epochs ($>$day~800)

894: than those considered here \citep{koz98}.  Thus, on both energy and

895: velocity considerations, we have evidence that most of the 8~$\mu$m

896: and 24~$\mu$m fluxes cannot be due to emission from supernova ejecta

897: dust. \\

898: 

899: Let us now suppose that only the fading component of the 24~$\mu$m

900: source is due to ejecta dust while the remainder of the 24~$\mu$m flux

901: plus some or all of the 8~$\mu$m flux is due to a background source.

902: At 250~K, to match the fading component would require a blackbody

903: luminosity of 3 times the likely deposited radioactive luminosity and

904: a velocity of $2800^{+300}_{-400}$~km~s$^{-1}$, where the error is due

905: to the flux uncertainty. Even if we reduce the distance by 1~Mpc and

906: use the lower limit of the flux values, the velocity still exceeds

907: 2000~km~s$^{-1}$ and the luminosity still exceeds the deposited

908: radioactive luminosity by a factor of 2.  Reducing the temperature

909: from 250~K to 150~K, the luminosity falls by 30\% but the velocity of

910: the blackbody surface rises to an increasingly implausible

911: $6700^{+700}_{-900}$ km~s$^{-1}$. (We note that, in their model, S06

912: invoke an outer limit for their dust zone of $\sim$8000~km~s$^{-1}$,

913: which is even more unlikely.)  Increasing the temperature above 250~K

914: also does not help since the luminosity deficit problem would

915: worsen. Moreover, this would produce an 8~$\mu$m flux in excess of

916: that seen near the SN position.  Similar results are obtained if we

917: employ our dust emission model rather than a blackbody.  We conclude

918: that most of the fading component of the 24~$\mu$m flux cannot be due

919: to dust in the SN ejecta. \\

920: 

921: If the mid-IR flux observed near the position of SN~2003gd is not due

922: to condensing dust in the ejecta, then what could be the origin of the

923: emission?  The substantial fading at 24~$\mu$m between day~678/81 and

924: day~1264 points to a causal connection with the SN. A possible

925: scenario is that the mid-IR emission originated in an IR echo from

926: circumstellar or interstellar gas.  As an illustration, we have

927: estimated the parameters of a dust sheet lying in front of the SN

928: required to reproduce the fading component of the 24~$\mu$m flux.  We

929: used an IR~echo model similar to that described by \citet{mei06}.  The

930: input bolometric light curve was based on the information given by

931: \citet{hen05}, with a single grain radius of 0.07~$\mu$m. Estimates

932: were repeated using the specific grain emissivities of different dust

933: species. Preliminary results suggest that the 24~$\mu$m flux can be

934: reproduced with a dust sheet of H number density $\sim$10~cm$^{-3}$,

935: gas-to-dust ratio of 100, lying 10--20~pc in front of the SN.  At this

936: distance the dust temperature is 75--90~K.  The optical depth to

937: UV-optical photons is $\sim$0.2.  The echo radius would be about

938: $0\farcs1$ and so such a source would be effectively coincident with

939: the SN position.  To account for the fading the dust sheet would have

940: to be of irregular density on scales of a few parsecs (a fraction of

941: an arcsecond).  \citet{sug05} and \citet{vdy06} found an optical echo

942: on day~623 lying at $0\farcs3$ from SN~2003gd, with a strong

943: concentration to the NW.  They showed that this could be explained by a

944: dust sheet lying about 100~pc in front of the SN.  The one-sided

945: appearance of the optical echo suggests that such dust sheets can

946: indeed exhibit large density fluctuations on a scale of only a few

947: tenths of an arcsecond. We conclude that an IR~echo may well be

948: responsible for the variable component of the 24~$\mu$m flux from

949: SN~2003gd.  Further discussion of the IR~echo hypothesis as applied to

950: SN~2003gd is beyond the scope of this paper. \\

951: 

952: The key point following from the above discussion is that most of the

953: mid-IR flux at days~670--681 could not have been due to dust in the

954: supernova ejecta.  In particular, it suggests that the inference by

955: S06 of a large mass (0.02~M$_{\odot}$) of ejecta dust is

956: unjustified.\\

957: 

958: \section{Conclusions}

959: We have examined late-time mid-IR observations of the

960: Type~II-P SN~2003gd and find the following.

961: 

962: {\it(i)} By day~496/9, at least $4 \times 10^{-5}$

963: M$_{\odot}$ of dust had formed in the ejecta of SN~2003gd.  The larger

964: (factor of $\sim$4) mass indicated by the smooth model of S06 appears

965: to be due to the presence of a larger component of cold dust, but this

966: has no direct observational support.  After allowing for differences

967: in $^{56}$Ni production, we find that the optical flux of SN~2003gd is

968: similar to the coeval value for SN~1987A, while the 3--9~$\mu$m flux

969: is almost three times stronger.  This may indicate more efficient dust

970: production in SN~2003gd.  Nevertheless, there is no evidence at this

971: epoch that the absolute dust production was unusually high.  The dust

972: masses and temperatures are similar to those inferred for SN~1987A

973: \citep{woo93}.  There is also evidence that the dust in SN~2003gd

974: formed in clumps.  Comparison with coeval spectra of SN~1987A shows

975: that even as late as day~$\sim$500 the extraction of information about

976: dust formation from broad-band photometry has to be approached with

977: caution due to the effects of other emission mechanisms.  This

978: underlines the desirability of acquiring low-resolution spectra for

979: such studies, since this would allow correction for forbidden lines

980: and molecular emission.\\

981: 

982: {\it(ii)} Emission from point-like sources close to the SN position

983: was detected on day~670 at 8~$\mu$m and day~678/81 at 24~$\mu$m.  The

984: fading of the 24~$\mu$m source (\S~3.3) tends to rule out a background

985: source as the origin of the mid-IR emission, at least for most of the

986: 24~$\mu$m flux.  However, energy and velocity considerations also rule

987: out the ejecta of SN~2003gd as the origin of most of the mid-IR

988: fluxes.  The inference by S06 of 0.02~M$_{\odot}$ of ejecta dust is

989: based on a 24~$\mu$m flux which we find is only a quarter to a third

990: of the true value. But even if we adopt their flux, their claim of

991: such a large mass of dust is unconvincing.  The large dust mass they

992: find appears to be a consequence of the low characteristic temperature

993: in their model.  However, in order that sufficient mid-IR radiation

994: should escape, it seems that the dust formation zone has to be as

995: large as $\sim$8000~km~s$^{-1}$, in conflict with the observed metal

996: line velocities. Also, in spite of the low temperature, the input

997: luminosity of their model required to reproduce the 24~$\mu$m flux

998: exceeds that of the likely deposited radioactive decay luminosity.

999: Had the correct (much larger) 24~$\mu$m flux been used, these

1000: difficulties would have been even greater. We conclude that the

1001: 0.02~M$_{\odot}$ of ejecta dust deduced by S06 is unsupported by the

1002: data.  These {\it Spitzer} observations provide no basis for the S06

1003: claim that ``the [dust] condensation efficiency implied by SN~2003gd

1004: is close to the value of 0.2 needed for SNe to account for the dust

1005: content of high-redshift galaxies.''  There is, as yet, no direct

1006: evidence that CCSNe are major dust factories. \\

1007: 

1008: An additional argument against a large detected mass of ejecta dust in

1009: SN~2003gd is pointed out by the referee.  The mass of dust inferred by

1010: S06 for SN~2003gd is a factor of 25 greater than the maximum amount in

1011: SN~1987A determined by \citet{erc07} using a similar model. These

1012: authors suggest that this implies a much higher condensation

1013: efficiency in SN~2003gd.  Yet, the diminution of the optical light

1014: curve of SN~2003gd shown in S06 about 100~days after dust formation is

1015: only about 1.3 mag, very similar to that for SN~1987A at about

1016: the same epoch after dust formation \citep[e.g.,][]{whi89}.  Also the

1017: blueward shifts of the emission lines are not greater in SN~2003gd than in

1018: SN~1987A \citep[e.g.,][]{dan91}.  Given the apparently very different

1019: estimated dust masses between the two SNe, it is difficult to see how

1020: these observed similarities are possible.  One might argue that in

1021: SN~2003gd the dust is more concentrated to the center, but this is

1022: apparently belied by the shift in the H$\alpha$ lines (S06) which

1023: presumably arise farther out in the envelope.  \\

1024: 

1025: The goal of determining the true dust production in SNe via the

1026: thermal emission from the grains is very challenging. Even at

1027: wavelengths as long as 24~$\mu$m, it is likely that the dust forming

1028: in SN ejecta would become optically thick long before a universally

1029: significant mass of dust was formed.  For example, consider a uniform

1030: distribution of astronomical silicate grains.  For $\lambda>20~\mu$m,

1031: $\kappa_\nu \approx 1000(\lambda(\mu {\rm m})/20)^{-2}$ \citep{lao93},

1032: where $\kappa_\nu$ is the mass absorption coefficient (cm$^2$

1033: g$^{-1}$) at frequency $\nu$.  If we set $\tau_\nu>3$, where

1034: $\tau_\nu$ is the optical depth to the dust sphere center at frequency

1035: $\nu$, and let the radius of the refractory element zone be as large

1036: as $v = 3000$~km~s$^{-1}$, we obtain from our uniform dust model

1037: \begin{equation}

1038: M_d>1.5\times10^{-3}(\lambda(\mu {\rm m})/20)^2(t{\rm (days)}/600)^2~M_{\odot}.

1039: \end{equation}

1040: \noindent

1041: At 24~$\mu$m, and as late as 2~years after the explosion, the lower

1042: limit for the dust mass would still only be

1043: $3\times10^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$.  Similar lower limits are obtained for

1044: other grain materials such as amorphous carbon. In general,

1045: $\kappa_\nu$ rises toward shorter wavelengths, producing even smaller

1046: lower limits. Dust measurement at still later epochs becomes

1047: increasingly difficult as the grains cool beyond the sensitivity

1048: limits of even {\it Spitzer}.  \\

1049: 

1050: Of course, if the grains are arranged in optically thick clumps, then

1051: a large mass of dust could be hidden in the clumps. This problem has

1052: been recognized for many years, as in SN~1987A \citep{luc89,woo93} and

1053: SN~1998S \citep{poz04}. \citet{erc07} have recently shown that if

1054: clumps are optically thick in just the optical/near-IR region, but

1055: thin in the mid-IR, then the dust mass may be constrained by the

1056: observed luminosities in the two wavelength regions.  However, once

1057: the dust becomes optically thick in the mid-IR it is possible to

1058: derive lower limits only.  As explained above, this situation sets in

1059: when the dust mass exceeds only a few times $10^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$,

1060: well below the cosmologically interesting limit of

1061: $\sim0.1$~M$_{\odot}$.  \\

1062: 

1063: The value of mid-IR studies of CCSNe, such as the {\it Spitzer} work

1064: described here, is that they can test whether dust condensation

1065: is common in typical events (i.e., SNe~II-P).  This is an essential

1066: step if we are to demonstrate that CCSNe are major sources of

1067: universal dust. But if large masses of dust {\it are} formed in SN

1068: ejecta, the direct measurement of the total masses involved is likely

1069: to require observations at much longer wavelengths.  However, even

1070: with such observations there would remain the challenge of eliminating

1071: the effects of IR echoes.

1072: 

1073: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,

1074: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments

1075: %% command.

1076: 

1077: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the

1078: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]

1079: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,

1080: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the

1081: %% text to be printed in the second.

1082: 

1083: \acknowledgments We thank the referee for valuable comments and

1084: suggestions.  We are grateful to B.~Sugerman and the {\it SEEDS} team

1085: for making their proprietary data available to us.  We thank J. Scalo

1086: and L. Pan for helpful discussions.  We also thank M.~Regan for

1087: providing details about the SINGS-processed images, and B.~Ercolano

1088: and M.~Barlow for discussions about dust/IR~emission models.  S.M. was

1089: supported by funds from the Participating Organisations of EURYI and

1090: the EC Sixth Framework Programme.  C.L.G. was supported in part by

1091: PPARC Grant PPA/G/S /2003/00040.  R.K. was supported in part by EU RTN

1092: Grant HPRN-CT-2002-00303.  M.P. was supported by PPARC Grant

1093: PPA/G/S/2001/00512.  J.C.W. and A.V.F. were supported in part by NSF

1094: grants AST--0406740 and AST--0607485, respectively. This work is based

1095: on observations made with the {\it Spitzer Space Telescope}, which is

1096: operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of

1097: Technology, under a contract with NASA. Support for this work was

1098: provided by NASA through an award (3248) issued by JPL/Caltech.

1099: 

1100: 

1101: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their

1102: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope

1103: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches

1104: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be

1105: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes

1106: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.

1107: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX

1108: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.

1109: 

1110: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the

1111: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research

1112: %% for the paper.  Each keyword will be checked against the master list during

1113: %% copy editing.  Individual instruments or configurations can be provided 

1114: %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.

1115: 

1116: Facilities: \facility{Spitzer Space Telescope,~} \facility{SSC Leopard

1117: Archive Tool,~} \facility{ NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database ({\it NED}).}

1118: 

1119: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.

1120: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix

1121: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.

1122: 

1123: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.

1124: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix

1125: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.

1126: 

1127: \appendix

1128: 

1129: \section{SN Dust Production Required to Account for Observed High-Redshift 

1130: Dust} Models of dust formation in CCSNe \citep{tod01,noz03} succeed in

1131: producing copious amounts of dust --- around 0.1--1~M$_{\odot}$ even

1132: in the low-metallicity environments of the early universe.  This

1133: corresponds to a SN dust condensation efficiency of about 0.2

1134: \citep{mor03}, where the efficiency is defined as the dust mass

1135: divided by the total mass of refractory elements.  This is enough to

1136: account for the quantity of dust seen at high redshifts.  \\

1137: 

1138: As a demonstration, let us consider the results of \citet{ber03}. In

1139: their study of high-redshift quasars they deduced, from the far-IR

1140: luminosities, a star-formation rate of $\sim$3000~M$_{\odot}$

1141: yr$^{-1}$ and a dust-formation rate of $\sim$1~M$_{\odot}$

1142: yr$^{-1}$. Consider a simple stellar mass spectrum \\

1143: \begin{equation}

1144: dN=\gamma M^{-2.5}dM, \\

1145: \end{equation} 

1146: \noindent

1147: where $dN$ is the number of stars in the mass interval $M$ to $M +

1148: dM$, $\gamma$ is a constant with units of (mass)$^{1.5}$, and all

1149: stars lie within the mass range 0.2~M$_{\odot} < M <$ 30~M$_{\odot}$.

1150: The total stellar mass in the interval $M$ to $M + dM$ is given by

1151: $dM_{tot} = MdN =\gamma M^{-1.5}dM$.  Integrating this equation over

1152: the stellar mass range we obtain $M_{tot}=4.1\gamma$. In one year we

1153: have $M_{tot}=4.1\gamma = 3000$~M$_{\odot}$, so $\gamma=732$.  Stars

1154: of mass exceeding about 8~M$_{\odot}$ will end their lives as

1155: CCSNe. Integrating equation~(A1) over the range 8~M$_{\odot}$ to

1156: 30~M$_{\odot}$, we obtain $N = 0.0381\gamma = 28.0$ --- that is, about

1157: 28~CCSNe per year would occur. To produce 1~M$_{\odot}$ of dust per

1158: year, the average dust yield of each SN would have to be

1159: 0.036~M$_{\odot}$. Thus, the production rates of dust condensation

1160: models \citep{tod01,noz03} are indeed sufficient to account for the

1161: high-redshift dust. \\

1162: 

1163: The progenitor of SN~2003gd had a mass in the range 6--12~M$_{\odot}$

1164: \citep{vdy03,hen05}. This would produce about 0.3~M$_{\odot}$ of refractory

1165: elements \citep{woo95}. Consequently, for such a SN to match the

1166: required average dust production, the refractory elements would have

1167: to be converted into dust with an efficiency of about 0.1.

1168: 

1169: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.

1170: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.

1171: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of

1172: %% curly braces.  If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error

1173: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".

1174: %%

1175: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite

1176: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a

1177: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds

1178: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).

1179: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the

1180: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain

1181: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in

1182: %% place of the \cite commands.

1183: 

1184: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.

1185: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.

1186: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.

1187: 

1188: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly

1189: %% different from previous examples.  The natbib system solves a host

1190: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly

1191: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.

1192: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.

1193: 

1194: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1195: \bibitem[Alard (2000)]{ala00}Alard, C. 2000, \aap, 144, 363 

1196: \bibitem[Arnett \etal (1989)]{arn89}Arnett, W. D., Bahcall, J. N., 

1197:   Kirshner, R. P., \& Woosley, S. E. 1989, ARAA, 27, 629

1198: \bibitem[Bertoldi \etal (2003)]{ber03} Bertoldi, F., Carilli, C. L.,

1199: Cox, P., Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Beelen, A., Omont, A., \& Zylka,

1200: R. 2003, \aap, 406, L55

1201: \bibitem[Bouchet \& Danziger (1993)]{bou93}Bouchet, P., \& Danziger,

1202: I. J.  1993, \aap, 273, 45

1203: \bibitem[Bouchet \etal (1991)]{bou91}Bouchet, P., Phillips, M. M.,

1204: Suntzeff, N. B., Gouiffes, C., Hanuschik, R. W., \& Wooden, D. H. 1991,

1205: \aap, 245, 490

1206: \bibitem[Cernuschi, Marsicano, \& Codina (1967)]{cer67}Cernuschi, F.,

1207: Marsicano, F. R., \& Codina, S. 1967, Ann. d'Astr., 30, 1039 

1208: \bibitem[Clayton \etal (1997)]{cla97}Clayton, D. D., Amari, S., \&

1209: Zinner, E. 1997, \apss, 251, 355

1210: \bibitem[Cardelli, Clayton, \& Mathis (1989)]{car89}Cardelli, J. A.,

1211: Clayton, G. C., \& Mathis, J. S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245 

1212: \bibitem[Danziger \etal (1989)]{dan89}Danziger, I. J., Gouiffes, C.,

1213: Bouchet, P., \& Lucy, L. B. 1989, IAU Circ., 4746, 1

1214: \bibitem[Danziger et al. (1991)]{dan91}Danziger, I.J., Lucy, L.B.,

1215: Bouchet, P., Gouiffes, C., in Supernovae, ed. S. E. Woosley

1216: (New York: Springer), 69

1217: \bibitem[Douvion, Lagage, \& Pantin (2001)]{dou01}Douvion, T.,

1218: Lagage, P. O., \& Pantin, E. 2001, \aap, 369, 589 

1219: \bibitem[Draper, Gray, \& Berry (2002)]{dra02}Draper, P. W., Gray, N.,

1220: \& Berry, D. S. 2002, Starlink User Note 214.10

1221: \bibitem[Dunne \etal (2003)]{dun03}Dunne, L., Eales, S., Ivison, R.,

1222: Morgan, H., \& Edmunds, M. 2003, \nat, 424, 285

1223: \bibitem[Dwek(1998)]{dwe98}Dwek, E. 1998, \apj, 501, 643

1224: \bibitem[Dwek \etal (1987)]{dwe87}Dwek, E., Dinerstein, H. L.,

1225: Gillett, F. C., Hauser, M. G., \& Rice, W. L. 1987, \apj, 315, 571 

1226: \bibitem[Dwek \etal (1992)]{dwe92}Dwek, E., Moseley, S. H., Glaccum,

1227: W., Graham, J. R., Loewenstein, R. F., Silverberg, R. F., \& Smith,

1228: R. K. 1992, \apjl, 389, L21

1229: \bibitem[Elmhamdi \etal (2003)]{elm03}Elmhamdi, A., \etal 2003, \mnras,

1230: 338, 939

1231: \bibitem[Ercolano, Barlow, \& Sugerman (2007)]{erc07}Ercolano, B.,

1232: Barlow, M. J., \& Sugerman, B. E. K. 2007, \mnras, 375, 753 

1233: \bibitem[Evans \& McNaught (2003)]{eva03}Evans, R., \& McNaught, R.

1234: 2003, IAU Circ., 8150, 2

1235: \bibitem[Fall, Charlot, \& Pei (1996)]{fal96}Fall, S. M., Charlot, S.,

1236: \& Pei, Y. C. 1996, \apjl, 464, L43 

1237: \bibitem[Fall, Pei, \& McMahon (1989)]{fal89}Fall, S. M., Pei, Y. C., \&

1238: McMahon, R. G. 1989, \apjl, 341, L5

1239: \bibitem[Garnavich \& Bass (2003)]{gar03}Garnavich, P., \& Bass,

1240: E. 2003, IAU Circ., 8150, 3

1241: \bibitem[Gehrz (1989)]{geh89}Gehrz, R. D. 1989, in Interstellar Dust:

1242: Proceedings of the 135th Symposium of the International Astronomical

1243: Union, ed.  ed. L. J. Allamandola, A. G. G. M. Tielens (Dordrecht:

1244: Kluwer), 445

1245: \bibitem[Gerardy \etal (2002)]{ger02}Gerardy, C. L., Fesen, R. A.,

1246: Nomoto, K., Garnavich, P. M., Jha, S., Challis, P. M., Kirshner, R. P.,

1247: H\"oflich, P., \& Wheeler, J. C. 2002, \apj, 575, 1003 

1248: \bibitem[Hashimoto, Nomoto, \& Shigeyama (1989)]{has89}Hashimoto, M.,

1249: Nomoto, K., \&  Shigeyama, T. 1989, \aap, 210, 5

1250: \bibitem[Hendry \etal(2005)]{hen05}Hendry, M. A., \etal 2005, \mnras,

1251: 359, 906

1252: \bibitem[Hoyle \& Wickramasinghe (1970)]{hoy70}Hoyle, F., \&

1253: Wickramasinghe, N. C. 1970, \nat, 226, 62 

1254: \bibitem[Kennicutt \etal (2003)]{ken03}Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., \etal

1255:  2003, \pasp, 115, 928

1256: \bibitem[Kifonidis \etal (2006)]{kif06}Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T.,

1257: Scheck, L., Janka, H.-Th., \& M\"uller, E. 2006, \aap, 453, 661

1258: \bibitem[Kitaura, Janka, \& Hillebrandt (2006)]{kit06}Kitaura, F. S.,

1259: Janka, H.-Th., \& Hillebrandt, W. 2006, \aap, 450, 345

1260: \bibitem[Koike \etal (1981)]{koi81}Koike, C., Hasegawa, H., Asada,

1261: N., \& Hattori, T. 1981, \apss, 79, 77

1262: \bibitem[Kotak \etal (2003)]{kot03}Kotak, R., Meikle, W. P. S.,

1263: Smartt, S. J., \& Benn, C. 2003, IAU Circ., 8152, 1

1264: \bibitem[Kotak \etal (2006)]{kot06}Kotak, R., \etal 2006, \apj, 651,

1265:   117

1266: \bibitem[Kozasa, Hasegawa, \& Nomoto (1989)]{koz89}Kozasa, T., 

1267: Hasegawa, H., \& Nomoto, K. 1989, \apj, 344, 325 

1268: \bibitem[Kozma \& Fransson (1998)]{koz98}Kozma, C., \& Fransson,

1269: C. 1998, \apj, 496, 946

1270: \bibitem[Krause \etal (2004)]{kra04}Krause, O., Birkmann, S. M.,

1271: Rieke, G. H., Lemke, D., Klaas, U., Hines, D. C., \& Gordon, K. D.

1272: 2004, \nat, 432, 596

1273: \bibitem[Lagage \etal (1996)]{lag96}Lagage, P. O., Claret, A., Ballet,

1274: J., Boulanger, F., C\'esarsky, C. J., C\'esarsky, D., Fransson, C., \&

1275: Pollock, A.  1996, \aap, 315, L273

1276: \bibitem[Laor \& Draine (1993)]{lao93}Laor, A., \& Draine, B. T. 1993,

1277: \apj, 402, 441

1278: \bibitem[Li, McCray, \& Sunyaev (1993)]{li93}Li, H., McCray, R., \&

1279: Sunyaev, R. A. 1993, \apj, 419, 824 

1280: \bibitem[Lucy \etal (1989)]{luc89}Lucy, L. B., Danziger, I. J.,

1281: Gouiffes, C., \& Bouchet, P.  1989, in Structure and Dynamics of

1282: the Interstellar Medium, ed. G. Tenorio-Tagle, \etal

1283: (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 164

1284: \bibitem[Lucy \etal(1991)]{luc91}Lucy, L. B., Danziger, I. J., Gouiffes,

1285: C., \& Bouchet, P. 1991, in {\it Supernovae}, ed. S. E.~Woosley (New

1286: York: Springer), 82

1287: \bibitem[Mathis, Rumpl, \& Nordsieck (1977)]{mat77}Mathis, J. S.,

1288: Rumpl, W., \& Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, \apj, 217, 425 

1289: \bibitem[Meikle \etal (1993)]{mei93}Meikle, W. P. S., Spyromilio, J.,

1290: Allen, D. A., Varani, G.-F., \& Cumming, R. J. 1993, \mnras, 261, 535

1291: \bibitem[Meikle \etal (1989)]{mei89}Meikle, W. P. S., Spyromilio, J.,

1292: Varani, G.-F., \& Allen, D. A. 1989, \mnras, 238, 193 

1293: \bibitem[Meikle \etal (2006)]{mei06}Meikle, W. P. S., \etal 2006, 

1294: \apj, 649, 332

1295: \bibitem[Morgan \& Edmunds (2003)]{mor03}Morgan, H. L., \& Edmunds,

1296: M. G. 2003, \mnras, 343, 427

1297: \bibitem[Nomoto \etal (1991)]{nom91}Nomoto, K., Shigeyama, T.,

1298: Kumagai, S., \& Yamaoka, H. 1991, in {\it Supernovae}, ed. S. E. Woosley

1299: (New York: Springer), 176

1300: \bibitem[Nomoto, Sugimoto, \& Sparks (1982)]{nom82}Nomoto, K., Sugimoto, D., \&

1301: Sparks, W. M. 1982, \nat, 299, 803 

1302: \bibitem[Nozawa \etal (2003)]{noz03}Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Umeda, H.,

1303: Maeda, K., \& Nomoto, K. 2003, \apj, 598, 78

1304: \bibitem[Osterbrock (1989)]{ost89}Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, 

1305: Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei (Mill

1306: Valley, CA: University Science Books)

1307: \bibitem[Pei, Fall, \& Bechtold (1991)]{pei91}Pei, Y. C., Fall, S. M., \&

1308: Bechtold, J. 1991, \apj, 378, 6

1309: \bibitem[Pettini \etal (1997)]{pet97}Pettini, M., King, D. L.,

1310: Smith, L. J., \& Hunstead, R. W. 1997, \apj, 478, 536 

1311: \bibitem[Phillips \etal (2003)]{phi03}Phillips, M., Navarrete, M.,  \&

1312: Preston, G. 2003, IAU Circ., 8152, 2

1313: \bibitem[Pozzo \etal(2004)]{poz04}Pozzo, M., Meikle, W. P. S., Fassia,

1314: A., Geballe, T., Lundqvist, P., Chugai, N. N., \& Sollerman, J.  2004,

1315: \mnras, 352, 457

1316: \bibitem[Pozzo \etal (2006)]{poz06}Pozzo, M., \etal 2006, \mnras, 368,

1317: 1169

1318: \bibitem[Pun \etal (1995)]{pun95}Pun, J., \etal 1995, \apjs, 99, 223

1319: \bibitem[Regan \etal (2004)]{reg04}Regan, M. W., \etal 2004, \apjs,

1320: 154, 204

1321: \bibitem[Roche, Aitken, \& Smith (1993)]{roc93}Roche, P. F., 

1322: Aitken, D. K., \& Smith, C. H. 1993, \mnras, 261, 522 

1323: \bibitem[Rouleau \& Martin (1991)]{rou91}Rouleau, R., \& Martin,

1324: P. G. 1991, \apj, 377, 526

1325: \bibitem[Smartt \etal (2004)]{sma04}Smartt, S. J., Maund, J. R., Hendry,

1326: M. A., Tout, C. A., Gilmore, G. F., Mattila, S., \& Benn, C. R. 2004,

1327: Science, 303, 499

1328: \bibitem[Sugerman(2005)]{sug05}Sugerman, B. E. K. 2005, \apjl, 632, L17

1329: \bibitem[Sugerman \etal (2006)]{sug06}Sugerman, B. E. K., \etal 2006, 

1330: Science, 313, 196 [S06]

1331: \bibitem[Suntzeff \& Bouchet (1990)]{sun90}Suntzeff, N. B., \&

1332: Bouchet, P. 1990, \aj, 99, 650

1333: \bibitem[Temim \etal (2006)]{tem06}Temim, T., \etal 2006, \aj, 132,

1334: 1610 

1335: \bibitem[Tielens (1990)]{tie90}Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1990, NASA

1336: Conf. Pub. 3061, ed. J. C. Tarter, S. Chang, \& D. J. Defrees

1337: (Washington DC: NASA), 59

1338: \bibitem[Todini \& Ferrara(2001)]{tod01} Todini, P., \& Ferrara, A.

1339: 2001, \mnras, 325, 726

1340: \bibitem[Van Dyk, Li, \& Filippenko (2003)]{vdy03}Van Dyk, S. D., 

1341: Li, W., \& Filippenko, A. V. 2003, \pasp, 115, 1289

1342: \bibitem[Van Dyk, Li, \& Filippenko (2006)]{vdy06}Van Dyk, S. D., 

1343: Li, W., \& Filippenko, A. V. 2006, \pasp, 118, 351

1344: \bibitem[Whitelock \etal (1988)]{whi88}Whitelock, P. A., \etal 1988,

1345: \mnras, 234, 5P

1346: \bibitem[Whitelock \etal (1989)]{whi89}Whitelock, P. A., \etal 1989,

1347: \mnras, 240, 7

1348: \bibitem[Wooden \etal (1993)]{woo93}Wooden, D. H., Rank, D. M.,

1349: Bregman, J. D., Witteborn, F. C., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Cohen, M.,

1350: Pinto, P. A., \& Axelrod, T. S., 1993, \apjs, 88, 477

1351: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver (1995)]{woo95}Woosley, S. E., \& Weaver,

1352: T. A. 1995, \apjs, 101, 181

1353: \end{thebibliography}

1354: 

1355: \clearpage

1356: 

1357: 

1358: %% Tables may also be prepared as separate files. See the accompanying

1359: %% sample file table.tex for an example of an external table file.

1360: %% To include an external file in your main document, use the \input

1361: %% command. Uncomment the line below to include table.tex in this

1362: %% sample file. (Note that you will need to comment out the \documentclass,

1363: %% \begin{document}, and \end{document} commands from table.tex if you want

1364: %% to include it in this document.)

1365: 

1366: %% \input{table}

1367: %\clearpage

1368: 

1369: \begin{table}

1370: \tablenum{1}

1371: \begin{center}

1372: \caption{ Mid-IR Photometry on Day~496/9 at the Position of SN~2003gd} 

1373: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}

1374: &&&& \\ \hline

1375:  Author/method & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Flux ($\mu$Jy)} \\ 

1376:                     & 3.6~$\mu$m & 4.5~$\mu$m & 5.8~$\mu$m& 8.0~$\mu$m \\ \hline

1377: This work: PSF fit. & 19.9(3.6) & 74(12)    & 85.5(6.5) & 180(15)   \\

1378: This work: Im. sub. & 15.6(1.3) & 72.2(2.3) & 60.2(7.1) & 103.2(7.7)\\

1379: S06: PSF fit.       & 20.8(2.6) & 73.8(5.6) & 64.9(7.3) & 103(22)  \\ 

1380: \hline

1381: \end{tabular}

1382: \tablenotetext{}{ Col.~1 gives the photometry method used to derive

1383: the fluxes. The ``Im. Sub.'' values were obtained by aperture

1384: photometry of subtracted images (see text).  Uncertainties ($1\sigma$) are

1385: shown in brackets.  The fluxes obtained by S06 for this epoch are

1386: shown for comparison.}

1387: \end{center}

1388: \label{tab1}

1389: \end{table}

1390: 

1391: \clearpage

1392: 

1393: \begin{table}

1394: \tablenum{2}

1395: \begin{center}

1396: \caption{Model Parameters for Day~496/9.}  

1397: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}

1398: &&&&& \\ \hline

1399: Method & $T_{\rm dust}$ & $\tau_{10~\mu {\rm m}}$& Dust Mass & $f$  & $T_{\rm hot}$\\ 

1400:        & (K)        &                 & M$_{\odot}$       &      & (K)   \\ \hline

1401: PSF fit. & 525      &   2.6           & $6\times10^{-5}$& 0.17 &   6700   \\   

1402: Im sub.  & 525      &   2.3           & $4\times10^{-5}$& 0.13 &   6700   \\  

1403: \hline

1404: \end{tabular}

1405: \tablenotetext{}{Col.~1 gives the photometry method used to derive the

1406: fluxes to which the model was matched.  Optical depths to the center

1407: at 10~$\mu$m are shown in col.~3. The dust masses in col.~4 were

1408: derived assuming a distance of 9.3~Mpc. A 1~Mpc reduction in distance

1409: reduces the masses by about 10\%.  In col.~5, a ``covering factor''

1410: $f$ is shown (see text). Col.~6 gives the adopted temperature of the

1411: hot component. }

1412: \end{center}

1413: \label{tab2}

1414: \end{table}

1415: 

1416: \clearpage

1417: 

1418: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include

1419: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.

1420: %% To embed the sample graphics in

1421: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and

1422: %% \includegraphics commands

1423: %%

1424: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or

1425: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the

1426: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,

1427: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the

1428: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,

1429: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.

1430: %%

1431: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of

1432: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check

1433: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to

1434: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from

1435: %% journal to journal.

1436: 

1437: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to

1438: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption

1439: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be

1440: %% available in the electronic journal.

1441: 

1442: %FIGURE 1

1443: \begin{figure*}

1444: \epsscale{0.87}

1445: \plotone{f1.eps}

1446: \caption[]{Panels (a) and (b) show the field of SN~2003gd at 8~$\mu$m

1447: ({\it IRAC}) on day~496/9 and day~670, respectively.  Panel (c) shows

1448: the result of subtracting (b) from (a). The bright point source is

1449: SN~2003gd.  Panel (d) shows the field of SN~2003gd at 24~$\mu$m ({\it

1450: MIPS}) on day~678/81.  North is up, and east is to the left. The pixel

1451: scales are $0\farcs75$ pixel$^{-1}$ and $1\farcs5$ pixel$^{-1}$ at

1452: 8~$\mu$m and 24~$\mu$m, respectively.  Each panel is centred on the

1453: supernova position, determined using PSF fitting and the IRAF GEOMAP

1454: package (see text).

1455: \label{fig1}

1456: }

1457: \end{figure*}

1458: 

1459: \clearpage

1460: 

1461: %FIGURE 2

1462: \begin{figure*}

1463: \vspace{-1.5cm}

1464: \epsscale{0.64}

1465: \plotone{f2.eps}

1466: \vspace{-0.5cm}

1467: \caption[]{ Spectral energy distribution of SN~2003gd on day~496/9

1468: compared with the coeval SN~1987A spectrum and dust emission models.

1469: All data have been dereddened. The spectrum has been corrected for

1470: redshift.  See text for explanation of interpolation of the data to

1471: days~496/9. Open (blue) squares in IR region: PSF-derived {\it IRAC}

1472: points. Solid (blue) squares: image-subtraction-derived {\it IRAC}

1473: points. The cross bars indicate the {\it IRAC} bandwidths. Solid

1474: (black) squares in optical region: photometry from \citet{hen05}.

1475: Faint structured (green) spectrum: optical/IR spectrum of SN~1987A

1476: scaled to allow for differences in distance and $^{56}$Ni mass. The

1477: 3--13~$\mu$m spectrum flux has been multiplied by an additional factor

1478: of 2.8. Light continuous line (red): dust emission model matched to

1479: PSF-derived fluxes at 3.6 and 5.8~$\mu$m (this work).  Heavy

1480: continuous line (red): match to image-subtraction-derived fluxes at

1481: 3.6 and 5.8~$\mu$m (this work).  Note that the hot component was

1482: adjusted to match the underlying continuum of the scaled SN~1987A

1483: optical spectrum and {\it not} the broad-band points of SN~2003gd,

1484: which would contain a significant contribution from the many strong

1485: emission lines.  Dashed lines (black): dust emission models from

1486: S06. Long-dash: smooth model.  Short-dash: clumped model.

1487: \label{fig2}

1488: }

1489: \end{figure*}

1490: 

1491: %% If you are not including electronic art with your submission, you may

1492: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the

1493: %% User Guide for details.

1494: %%

1495: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,

1496: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage

1497: %% after every seventh one.

1498: 

1499: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before

1500: %% each one.

1501: 

1502: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables:  the

1503: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX

1504: %% table environment.  Use of deluxetable is preferred.

1505: %%

1506: 

1507: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,

1508: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.

1509: 

1510: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}

1511: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.

1512: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to

1513: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the

1514: %% reduced font size.

1515: %%

1516: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed

1517: %% inside the \tablecaption.

1518: 

1519: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full

1520: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic

1521: %% edition.

1522: 

1523: 

1524: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text

1525: %% that appears after it.

1526: 

1527: \end{document}

1528: 

1529: %%

1530: %% End of file `sample.tex'.

1531: