1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2,twoside]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
5: %\documentclass{aastex}
6:
7: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
8: \usepackage{graphics}
9: \usepackage{psfig}
10:
11: \def\93j{{SN~1993J}}
12: \def\R{{\sl ROSAT}}
13: \def\A{{\sl ASCA}}
14: \def\C{{\sl Chandra}}
15: \newcommand\hii{H{\small II}}
16: \newcommand\hi{H{\small I}}
17: \def\cor{\widehat=}
18: \def\gs{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil
19: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}
20: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##$\hfil\cr
21: >\cr\sim\cr}}}
22: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##$\hfil\cr
23: >\cr\sim\cr}}}
24: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$\hfil\cr
25: >\cr\sim\cr}}}}}
26: \def\ls{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil
27: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}
28: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##$\hfil\cr
29: <\cr\sim\cr}}}
30: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##$\hfil\cr
31: <\cr\sim\cr}}}
32: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$\hfil\cr
33: <\cr\sim\cr}}}}}
34:
35: \begin{document}
36:
37: \title{X-Ray Detection of a Pre-Supernova Evolution for the SN~1993J Progenitor}
38:
39: \author{Stefan Immler\altaffilmark{1},
40: Bernd Aschenbach\altaffilmark{2} \& Q. Daniel Wang\altaffilmark{1}}
41: \affil{$^1$Astronomy Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003}
42: %\affil{immler@astro.umass.edu}
43: \affil{$^2$Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik,
44: Postfach 1312, 85741 Garching, Germany}
45:
46: \shorttitle{X-Ray Detection of a Pre-Supernova Evolution for SN~1993J}
47: \shortauthors{Immler, Aschenbach \& Wang }
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50:
51: We report on the first detection of a pre-supernova (SN)
52: evolution in the X-ray regime. The results are based on \R\ observations
53: of \93j\ ranging from six days to five years after the outburst.
54: The X-ray observations are used to probe the SN shell interaction with the
55: ambient circumstellar matter (CSM). After exploring various scenarios that might
56: explain the observed X-ray lightcurve with a $t^{-0.27}$ rate of decline,
57: we present a coherent picture in terms of the interaction
58: of the SN shock front with the CSM deposited by the progenitor's stellar wind.
59: During the observed period, the SN shell has reached a radius of $3\times10^{17}$~cm
60: from the site of the explosion, corresponding to $\sim10^4$ years in the
61: progenitors stellar wind history. Our analysis shows that the mass-loss rate of
62: the progenitor has decreased constantly from $\dot{M} = 4\times10^{-4}$
63: to $4\times10^{-5}~{\rm M}_{\sun}~{\rm yr}^{-1} (v_{\rm w}/10~{\rm km~s}^{-1})$
64: during the late stage of the evolution.
65: Assuming a spherically symmetric expansion, the circumstellar matter density
66: profile is found to be significantly flatter ($\rho_{\rm csm} \propto r^{-1.63}$)
67: than expected for a constant mass-loss rate and constant wind velocity
68: profile ($r^{-2}$). The observed evolution either reflects a decrease in the
69: mass-loss rate, an increase in the wind speed or a combination of both,
70: indicating that the progenitor likely was making a transition from the red
71: to the blue supergiant phase during the late stage of its evolution.
72:
73: \end{abstract}
74:
75: \keywords{supernovae: individual (SN 1993J) --- stars: mass loss ---
76: X-rays: individual (SN 1993J) --- X-rays: ISM}
77:
78: \section{Introduction}
79: \label{introduction}
80:
81: The interaction of a supernova (SN) with circumstellar medium (CSM)
82: produces a fast shock wave in the CSM and a reverse shock wave into the
83: outer supernova ejecta.
84: Two characteristic regions of X-ray emission are produced by the interaction:
85: the forward shock wave in the CSM at $T \sim 10^4$ km s$^{-1}$ produces gas
86: with $\sim 10^9$ K, and the reverse shock wave in the supernova ejecta
87: $\sim 10^3$ km s$^{-1}$ less than the forward shock produces gas with
88: $T\sim 10^7$ K. The reverse shock is formed where the freely
89: expanding supernova ejecta catches up with the CSM shocked by the blast wave.
90: At early times, the reverse shock front is radiative and a dense, cool
91: ($T< 10^4$ K) shell can build up downstream from the radiating region
92: (Chevalier \& Fransson 1994). The dense shell can absorb X-rays from the
93: reverse shock region and reprocess them to lower energies.
94:
95: This scenario was supported by observations of Type IIb \93j\ with \R\
96: (Zimmermann et al.\ 1994, 1996) and with \A\ (Kohmura et al.\ 1994).
97: The early X-ray spectrum at day 6 was hard, with $T\sim 10^{8.5}$ K. At day $\sim 200$,
98: a softer component with $T\sim 10^7$ K dominated. The emergence of the softer
99: spectrum could be attributed to the decreased absorption by a cool shell
100: (Fransson, Lundqvist \& Chevalier 1996; hereafter: FLC96).
101: %Recent observations of SN~1999em
102: %with \C\ starting four days after the outburst also show that the X-ray
103: %spectrum becomes increasingly softer with time (Pooley et al.\ 2001).
104: %No other X-ray supernova has been well observed at such early
105: %times\footnote{a complete list of X-ray SNe and references can be found at
106: %http://xray.astro.umass.edu/sne.html}.
107:
108: \begin{figure*}[t!]
109: \centerline{ {\hfil\hfil
110: \psfig{figure=f1.ps,width=12cm,clip=}
111: \hfil\hfil} }
112: \caption{\R\ (0.5--2~keV band) X-ray lightcurve of \93j. Boxes mark PSPC data,
113: HRI data are indicated by crosses. Error bars are $1\sigma$ statistical errors.
114: The dotted line illustrates a $t^{-0.27}$ rate of decline.
115: \label{f1}}
116: \end{figure*}
117:
118: \section{Theoretical Background}
119: \label{theory}
120:
121: The thermal X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm x}$ of the shock heated plasma
122: is expressed by the product of the emission measure, EM, and the cooling
123: function, $\Lambda(T, Z, \Delta E)$, where $T$ is the plasma temperature,
124: $Z$ represents the elemental abundance distribution, and $\Delta E$ is
125: the X-ray energy bandwidth. For spherically symmetric conditions
126: ${\rm EM} = 4\pi \int_{R_0}^{R} n_{\rm e}^2 r^2 dr$, where $r$, the radial coordinate,
127: runs from $R_0$ to $R$, the current outer boundary of the shocked matter which
128: has an electron density $n_{\rm e}$. Assuming a constant supernova shock wave speed
129: $v_{\rm s}$, $R=v_{\rm s}t$, where $t$ represents the time elapsed since the
130: explosion. If the ambient matter density $\rho$ is dominated by a wind blown
131: by the progenitor star of the supernova the continuity equation requires
132: ${\dot{M}}=4\pi r^2 \rho v_{\rm w}$, with ${\dot{M}}$ the mass loss rate
133: and $v_{\rm w}$ the wind speed. The X-ray luminosity can then
134: be expressed as $L_{\rm x} = \frac{1}{4\pi} \Lambda(T)
135: \times ({\dot{M}}/{v_{\rm w}})^2 \times (v_{\rm s}~t)^{-1}$.
136: We can hence use the X-ray luminosity to measure the ratio
137: ${\dot{M}}$/$v_{\rm w}$ of the progenitor star.
138:
139: Each X-ray measurement at $t$ is related to the corresponding
140: distance from the site of the explosion.
141: This site had been reached by the wind at a time depending on $v_{\rm w}$,
142: or the age of the wind $t_{\rm w} = t v_{\rm s}/v_{\rm w}$.
143: Usually, $v_{\rm s} \gg v_{\rm w}$ so that with $t$ only a few
144: years we can look back in time quite an appreciably large time span
145: in the evolution of the progenitor's wind.
146: Assuming that $v_{\rm w}$ did not change over $t_{\rm w}$ we can even
147: directly measure the mass loss rate back in time. Whether
148: $v_{\rm w} = {\rm const}$ is a reasonable assumption will be discussed below.
149: Integration of the mass-loss rate along the path of the expanding shell gives
150: the mean density inside a sphere of radius $r$. For a constant wind velocity
151: $v_{\rm w}$ and mass-loss rate $\dot{M}$, a
152: $\rho_{\rm csm} = \rho_0 (r/r_0)^{-s}$ profile with $s=2$ is expected.
153:
154: After the expanding shell has become optically thin, it is expected that
155: emission from the SN ejecta itself, heated by the reverse shock, dominates
156: the X-ray output of the interaction regions due to its higher emission
157: measure and higher density. For a uniformly expanding ejecta
158: the density structure is a function of its expansion velocity,
159: $v$, and the time after the explosion, $t$:
160: $\rho_{\rm sn} = \rho_0 (t/t_0)^{-3} (v/v_0)^{-n}$ with $\rho_0$
161: the ejecta density at time $t_0$ and velocity $v_0$ (FLC96).
162: For a red supergiant progenitor, the power-law is
163: rather steep with index $n\sim20$ (Shigeyama et al.\ 1994; Baron, Hauschildt
164: \& Branch 1994; Suzuki \& Nomoto 1995; FLC96).
165: For constant $n$, the radius of the discontinuity surface between the
166: forward and the reverse shock evolves in time $t$ with
167: $R_{\rm c} \propto t^m$ where $m=(n-3)/(n-s)$ is the deceleration parameter.
168:
169: \section{X-Ray Observations and Analysis}
170: \label{obs}
171:
172: \93j\ in M81 was observed in 5 individual pointings with the
173: Position Sensitive Proportional Counter (PSPC) and in 10 individual pointings
174: with the High Resolution Imager (HRI) onboard \R\ (Tr\"umper 1983).
175: Total integration times with the PSPC and HRI instruments are 52.2~ks and 140.3~ks,
176: respectively. Assuming an initial explosion on March 28, 1993 (Ripero 1993),
177: the observations cover a period of 6 to 1\,821 days after the outburst.
178: A detailed description of the data calibration and analysis can be found in
179: Immler \& Wang \cite{Immler01}.
180:
181: In order to investigate the rate of decline for \93j, we constructed a
182: combined PSPC+HRI lightcurve, which is presented in Fig.~\ref{f1}.
183: HRI data were binned into 11 continuous observation blocks with
184: 5--20~ks exposure time each to obtain satisfactory counting statistics.
185: PSPC data were binned into 9 intervals with 2--18~ks integration time each.
186: The time-dependent background was determined by normalizing the total
187: background map of the HRI and PSPC images according to
188: the total source-removed count rate in each exposure interval.
189: Background subtracted source counts were extracted within the 90\% radii
190: around the fixed position of \93j. In order to reduce background due to
191: UV emission and cosmic rays, only HRI PI channels 2--10 were used.
192:
193: An effective 0.5--2~keV band cooling function of
194: $\Lambda=3\times10^{-23}$ ergs~cm$^{-3}$ s$^{-1}$ is adopted for an
195: assumed optically thin thermal plasma with a temperature of $10^7$~K
196: (Raymond, Cox \& Smith 1976).
197: The equivalent count rate to (unabsorbed) flux conversion factor
198: is $4 \times 10^{-11} $$({\rm~ergs~cm^{-2}~s^{-1})/(counts~s^{-1}})$
199: for a Galacti column density of
200: $N_{\rm H}=4\times10^{20}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$ (Dickey \& Lockman 1990).
201: \R\ HRI and PSPC count rates were converted using a factor of 3 appropriate
202: for the assumed source spectrum (cf. Immler \& Wang 2001).
203: HRI count rate to flux conversion factors as a function of spectral
204: model parameters are given in Fig.~5 in Wang, Immler \& Pietsch (1999).
205: The uncertainty of the HRI (PSPC) conversion factors for optically thin
206: thermal spectra with temperature in the range $10^{7}$--$10^{8.5}$~K
207: (cf. \S\ref{introduction}) is 22\% (19\%). An increase in absorbing column
208: from $10^{20}$ to $10^{21}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$ increases the unabsorbed source fluxes by
209: $\sim15\%$. Assuming a 0.86~keV thermal Bremsstrahlung spectrum (corresponding
210: to a temperature of $10^{7}$~K) instead of a Raymond \& Smith thermal plasma
211: reduces the HRI (PSPC) conversion factor by 4\% (1\%).
212:
213: \section{Discussion}
214: \label{discussion}
215:
216: \subsection{X-ray emission from the shock-heated stellar wind}
217: \label{wind}
218: We will first discuss the observed X-ray lightcurve in the
219: context of the shock-heated stellar wind model and explore other scenarios
220: later. In order to derive the stellar wind age prior to the outburst,
221: an initial wind velocity of $v_{\rm w}=10$~km~s$^{-1}$ and shock front
222: velocity of $v_{\rm s}=19\,900$~km~s$^{-1}$ are assumed (Bartel et al.\ 1994).
223: The choice for the stellar wind speed is justified by the fact that \93j\
224: is a Type IIb SN with a massive ($\sim15M_{\odot}$ ZAMS) red supergiant progenitor
225: (e.g. Podsiadlowski et al.\ 1993). Typical outflow velocities for these progenitors
226: are in the range of $3 \ls v_{\rm w} \ls 30$~km~s$^{-1}$, peaking at
227: $\sim10$--$15$~km~s$^{-1}$ (e.g. Barnbaum, Kastner \& Zuckermann 1991).
228:
229: Since the shock front catches up with the wind deposited by the
230: progenitor with a speed of up to $\sim2\,000\times$
231: larger, the interaction front can be used to probe the stellar wind history
232: over a period of $\sim10^4$ years. Our X-ray observations can hence be
233: used as a `time machine' to directly measure the CSM density during the last
234: stages of the stellar evolution.
235:
236: Fig.~\ref{f2} illustrates the change in mass-loss rate as a function of the
237: stellar wind age. It can be seen that the mass-loss rate constantly
238: declined from $\dot{M} = 4\times10^{-4}$ to
239: $4\times10^{-5}~{\rm M}_{\sun}~{\rm yr}^{-1} (v_{\rm w}/10~{\rm km~s}^{-1})$
240: just prior to the explosion. Integration of the mass lost by the progenitor
241: along the shock front gives the CSM density at the given interaction radius
242: from the SN site. The CSM density distribution is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{f3}.
243: It is found that the CSM density profile is best described
244: by a power law $\rho_{\rm csm} \propto r^{-s}$ with index
245: $s=1.63\pm0.02$, assuming a spherically symmetric expansion.
246: This is significantly flatter than expected for a constant mass-loss rate
247: and constant wind velocity profile ($r^{-2}$). The results confirm previous
248: evidence for a rather flat CSM density profile during the first year
249: ($s\sim1.5$, van Dyk et al.\ 1994; $1.5 \ls s \ls 1.7$, FLC96;
250: $s=1.66^{+0.12}_{-0.25}$, Marcaide et al.\ 1997).
251:
252: The observed change in the pre-SN history could be due to variations in one
253: of the following parameters:
254:
255: $\bullet$~Variations in velocity and/or temperature of the shocked CSM may have
256: caused changes in the X-ray output of the shocked region. This model was proposed
257: to explain the radio lightcurve of \93j\ (Fransson \& Bj\"ornsson 1998).
258: In fact, evidence for a $\ls20\%$ decrease in the expansion velocity over the
259: first $\sim4$ years was reported (Marcaide et al.\ 1997; Bartel et al.\ 2000).
260: This change in shock expansion velocity, however, would only lead to a
261: $<10\%$ increase in the mass-loss rate and cannot account for the
262: observed order-of-magnitude change. Also, as the \R\ soft X-ray band cooling
263: function for optically thin thermal plasma emission is not very sensitive to the
264: plasma temperature ($\Lambda(T) \propto T^{0.5}$; e.g. Raymond, Cox \&
265: Smith 1976), a change in temperature from $10^{7}$~K to a few $\times 10^{11}$~K
266: would be required to explain the observed change in the mass-loss rate history.
267: Such drastic temperature variations have neither been observed for SNe nor
268: have they been put forward by models describing the CSM interaction.
269: Therefore, variations in either the shock expansion velocity or in the
270: temperature accounting for the inferred evolution can be ruled out.
271:
272: $\bullet$~A different scenario would be a non-spherically symmetric geometry
273: caused by a binary evolution of the progenitor. Observational evidence
274: that the progenitor of \93j\ was a stripped supergiant in a binary system has
275: been presented based on the visual lightcurve, which cannot be described
276: by a single, massive star alone (e.g. Podsiadlowski et al.\ 1993).
277: In addition, ``double-horned'' emission line profiles indicate the presence
278: of a flattened or disk-like expanding shell (Matheson et al.\ 2000a; 2000b).
279: The X-ray lightcurve also shows some significant deviations from the long-term
280: $t^{-0.27}$ behavior (cf. Fig.~\ref{f1}). Such deviations have also been
281: observed for SN 1979C in the radio regime (Montes et al.\ 2000) and were
282: discussed in the context of a self-colliding binary stellar wind model leading
283: to the formation of a multiple shell-like CSM profile (Schwarz \& Pringle 1996).
284: X-ray observations of SN~1979C, however, were not suited to address these
285: questions (Immler, Pietsch \& Aschenbach 1998; Kaaret 2001).
286: Similarly, a binary model for \93j\ cannot be challenged by the \R\ data alone
287: and no information about the long-term radio lightcurve of \93j\ is available.
288:
289: $\bullet$~Alternatively, the observed evolution is caused by changes in the
290: wind parameters. The X-ray lightcurve implies $\rho_{\rm csm} \propto r^{-s}$
291: with $s=1.63$, or, using the continuity equation,
292: $\dot{M}$/$v_{\rm w} \propto r^{2-s} \propto r^{0.37}
293: \propto t_{\rm w}^{0.37}$. The ratio $\dot{M}$/$v_{\rm w}$ therefore decreases
294: with time approaching the date of the explosion, indicating either a decrease
295: in the mass-loss rate, an increase in the wind speed or a combination of both.
296: It is interesting to compare typical wind parameters for red and blue supergiants,
297: which are on the same evolutionary track for massive ($\gs15M_{\odot}$ ZAMS)
298: stars (e.g. Salasnich, Bressan \& Chioso 1999).
299: Whereas the mass-loss rate at $t_{\rm w}\sim10^4$ years
300: ($\dot{M} = 4\times10^{-4}~{\rm M}_{\sun}~{\rm yr}^{-1} (v_{\rm w}/10~{\rm km~s}^{-1})$)
301: is typical for a red supergiant
302: (e.g. $\dot{M} = 3\times10^{-4}~{\rm M}_{\sun}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ for HD 179821,
303: Jura, Velusamy \& Werner 2001; Chin \& Stothers 1990;
304: Schaller et al.\ 1992), the observed change in ratio $\dot{M}$/$v_{\rm w}$
305: by an order of magnitude at $t_{\rm w}\sim30$ years could indicate a transition
306: between the red and blue supergiant phase due to an increase in effective
307: temperature of the star. Blue supergiants are known to have
308: significantly lower mass-loss rates and higher wind velocities
309: ($\dot{M}\sim10^{-6}~{\rm M}_{\sun}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$,
310: $v_{\rm w}\sim500$--$1000~{\rm km~s}^{-1}$; e.g. Kudritzki et al.\ 1999).
311: This scenario for the evolution of the \93j\ progenitor would have some
312: interesting similarities with that of SN~1987A, whose progenitor
313: completely entered the blue supergiant phase after significant mass-transfer
314: to a companion (Podsiadlowski et al.\ 1993).
315:
316: Whereas our X-ray data alone cannot give information on whether $\dot{M}$ or
317: $v_{\rm w}$ have effectively changed during the late stage of the progenitor's
318: evolution, there is a clear difference between these possibilities
319: regarding the kinetical energy of the stellar wind:
320: using $\rho_{\rm csm} \propto r^{-1.63}$, the kinetical wind energy decreased
321: by a factor of 13 for a changing $\dot{M}$ during the observed
322: $\Delta t_{\rm w} \sim 10^4$ years. In the scenario of a changing $v_{\rm w}$
323: only, an increase in kinetical wind energy by a factor of $10^{2.2}$ is expected.
324: Future stellar evolutionary models might give answers as to which of the
325: two possibilities is more likely.
326:
327: \subsection{X-ray emission from the shocked-heated SN ejecta}
328: \label{ejecta}
329: Let us explore the scenario that the X-ray emission is dominated by the ejecta,
330: heated by the reverse shock. A necessary condition for the ejecta accounting for
331: the observed X-ray emission is that the absorption by the post-shock gas is low.
332: In this model, an ejecta density structure of
333: $\rho_{\rm sn} = \rho_0 (t/t_0)^{-3} (v/v_0)^{-n}$ is expected
334: (FLC96). The total X-ray output of both the
335: reverse-shock heated ejecta and the shocked stellar wind in the forward shock
336: is then given by $L_{\rm x} \propto (\dot{M}/v_{\rm w})^2 \times (t/t_0)^{3-2s}$
337: in the case where $n$ is large. In fact, using our inferred X-ray rate of
338: decline of $L_{\rm x} \propto t^{-0.27}$ is entirely consistent with the
339: above $L_{\rm x} \propto t^{3-2s} \propto t^{-0.24}$ for $s=1.63$.
340: The assumption that $n$ must be large is hence confirmed by our data
341: and has also been concluded from radio and optical observations of \93j\
342: ($n\sim20$--$30$; Shigeyama et al.\ 1994; Baron, Hauschildt \& Branch 1994;
343: Suzuki \& Nomoto 1995; FLC96).
344: It is important to note that if the density gradient for the ejecta is large,
345: X-rays from the reverse shock must be heavily absorbed. Whereas variations
346: in temperature of the ejecta can be ruled out to explain the observed X-ray
347: lightcurve (cf. \S\ref{wind}),
348: a change in absorption from initially $10^{22}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$ to the
349: Galactic column of $4\times10^{20}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$ could account for the
350: observed decrease in source flux (cf. Fig.~5 in Wang, Immler \& Pietsch 1999).
351: The signature of high absorption, however, is absent in all \R\ PSPC spectra of \93j,
352: which are consistent with the Galactic foreground absorption
353: ($N_{\rm H}=5.3\pm1.7\times10^{20}~{\rm cm}^{-2}$, Zimmermann et al.\ 1994,
354: 1996). The most likely scenario is hence that the emission from the
355: reverse shock is completely absorbed and that the observed soft X-rays
356: are only due to the shocked CSM of the progenitor wind.
357:
358: Based on the modeling of the early X-ray lightcurve of \93j, Fransson, Lundqvist \&
359: Chevalier (FLC96) concluded that the X-ray emission during the first months
360: originates from the interaction of the SN shock with the circumstellar medium.
361: As the reverse shock begins to penetrate the cool shell it is expected to
362: contribute an increasing fraction to the total X-ray output. This predicted rise
363: of the \R\ band X-ray flux after $\sim100$ days (as illustrated in Figs.~8 and
364: 10 in FLC96) due to the emerging ejecta is not observed with \R. Instead, the
365: overall long-term X-ray lightcurve (Fig.~\ref{f1}) is declining with a power-law
366: close to the initial measurements, which were consistently explained as a result
367: of the interaction of the SN shell with the ambient CSM.
368:
369: \section{Conclusions}
370: \label{conclusions}
371: We present the first detection of a pre-SN evolution in X-ray,
372: based on long-term monitoring of \93j\ with \R\ over a period of 5 years.
373: The data are fully consistent with a description in the context of the
374: SN shock interacting with the CSM blown off by the progenitor's stellar wind.
375: From the X-ray rate of decline $L_{\rm x} \propto t^{-0.27}$ we infer a CSM
376: profile $\rho_{\rm csm} \propto r^{-1.63}$, which is significantly flatter
377: than expected for a constant mass-loss rate and constant wind velocity
378: profile ($r^{-2}$). The observations cover an epoch of $\sim 10^4$
379: years in the progenitor's stellar wind history.
380: During this period, the mass-loss rate of the progenitor has decreased
381: constantly from $\dot{M} = 4\times10^{-4}$
382: to $4\times10^{-5}~{\rm M}_{\sun}~{\rm yr}^{-1} (v_{\rm w}/10~{\rm km~s}^{-1})$
383: just prior to the explosion.
384: The most likely explanation for this pre-SN evolution is either an
385: increase in wind speed, a decrease in mass-loss rate or a combination of both,
386: indicative that the progenitor star was undergoing a transition from the red
387: to the blue supergiant phase. The data demonstrate the scientific potential of
388: long-term X-ray monitoring of SNe as an important diagnostical tool to probe
389: the CSM interaction and the evolution of SN progenitors.
390:
391: \acknowledgments
392:
393: This research made use of various online services and databases,
394: e.g. ADS, HEASARC, NED, and the \R\ data archive at MPE.
395: The project is supported by NASA under the grants NAG 5-8999 and NAG5-9429.
396:
397: \begin{thebibliography}{}
398:
399: \bibitem[1991]{Barnbaum91}
400: Barnbaum, C., Kastner, J.H., \& Zuckermann, B. 1991, \aj, 102, 289
401: \bibitem[1994]{Baron94}
402: Baron, E., Hauschildt, P.H., \& Branch, D. 1994, \apj, 426, 334
403: \bibitem[1994]{Bartel94}
404: Bartel, N., et al.\ 1994, \nat, 368, 610
405: \bibitem[2000]{Bartel00}
406: Bartel, N., et al.\ 2000, Science, 287, 112
407: \bibitem[1994]{Chevalier94}
408: Chevalier, R.A., \& Fransson, C. 1990, \apj, 420, 268
409: \bibitem[1990]{Chin90}
410: Chin, C.-W., \& Stothers, R.B. 1994, \apjs, 73, 821
411: \bibitem[1990]{Dickey90}
412: Dickey, J.M., \& Lockman, F.J. 1990, \araa, 28, 215
413: \bibitem[1994]{Dyk94}
414: van Dyk, S.D., Weiler, K., Sramek, R.A., Rupen, M.P.,
415: \& Panagia, N. 1994, \apjl, 432, L115
416: \bibitem[1996]{Fransson96}
417: Fransson, C., Lundqvist, P., \& Chevalier, R.A. 1996, \apj, 461, 993 (FLC96)
418: \bibitem[1998]{Fransson98}
419: Fransson, C., \& Bj\"ornsson, C.-I. 1998, \apj, 509, 861
420: \bibitem[1998]{Immler98}
421: Immler, S., Pietsch, W., \& Aschenbach, B. 1998, A\&A, 331, 601
422: \bibitem[2001]{Immler01}
423: Immler, S., \& Wang, Q.D. 2001, \apj, 554, 202
424: \bibitem[2001]{Jura01}
425: Jura, M., Velusamy, T., \& Werner, M.W. 2001, \apj\, 556, 408
426: \bibitem[2001]{Kaaret01}
427: Kaaret, P. 2001, \apj\ accepted, astro-ph/0106568
428: \bibitem[1994]{Kohmura94}
429: Kohmura, Y., et al.\ 1994, PASJ, 46, L157
430: \bibitem[1999]{Kudritzki99}
431: Kudritzki, R.P., et al.\ 1999, A\&A, 350, 970
432: \bibitem[1997]{Marcaide97}
433: Marcaide, J.M., et al.\ 1997, \apjl, 486, L31
434: \bibitem[2000a]{Matheson00a}
435: Matheson, T., et al.\ 2000a, \apj, 120, 1487
436: \bibitem[2000b]{Matheson00b}
437: Matheson, T., et al.\ 2000b, \apj, 120, 1499
438: \bibitem[2000]{Montes00}
439: Montes, M.J., et al.\ 2000, \apj, 532, 1124
440: \bibitem[1992]{Podsiadlowski93}
441: Podsiadlowski, Ph., Hsu, J.J.L., Joss, P.C., \& Ross, R.R.
442: 1992, \nat, 364, 509
443: \bibitem[1976]{Raymond76}
444: Raymond, J.C., Cox, D.P., \& Smith, B.W. 1976, \apj, 204, 290
445: \bibitem[1993]{Ripero93}
446: Ripero, J. 1993, IAU Circ., No. 5731
447: \bibitem[1999]{Ripero99}
448: Salasnich, B., Bressan, A., \& Chioso, C. 1999, A\&A, 342, 131
449: \bibitem[1992]{Schaller92}
450: Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., \& Maeder, A. 1992, A\&AS, 96, 269
451: \bibitem[1996]{Schwarz96}
452: Schwarz, D.H., \& Pringle, J.E. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1018
453: \bibitem[1994]{Shigeyama94}
454: Shigeyama, T., Suzuki, T., Kumagai, S., et al.\ 1994, \apj, 420, 341
455: \bibitem[1995]{Suzuki95}
456: Suzuki, T., \& Nomoto, K. 1995, \apj, 455, 658
457: \bibitem[1983]{Truemper83}
458: Tr\"umper, J. 1983, Adv. Space Res., 2, 241
459: \bibitem[2001]{Wang99}
460: Wang, Q.D., Immler, S., \& Pietsch, W. 1999, \apj, 523, 121
461: \bibitem[1994]{Zimmermann94}
462: Zimmermann, H.U., et al.\ 1994, \nat, 367, 621
463: \bibitem[1994]{Zimmermann96}
464: Zimmermann, H.U., Lewin, W.H.G., \& Aschenbach, B. 1996,
465: in Conf Proc. ``R\"ontgenstrahlung from the Universe'',
466: MPE Report 263, 298
467:
468: \end{thebibliography}
469:
470:
471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
472: %% if Figures are included:
473: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
474:
475: \begin{figure*}[t!]
476: \psfig{figure=f2.ps,width=9cm,clip=}
477: \caption{Mass-loss rate history of the \93j\ progenitor.
478: PSPC data are marked by boxes, HRI data are indicated by crosses.
479: \label{f2}}
480: \end{figure*}
481:
482: \begin{figure*}[h!]
483: \psfig{figure=f3.ps,width=9cm,clip=}
484: \caption{Circumstellar density profile as a function of SN shell expansion radius.
485: The solid line gives the best-fit CSM profile of $\rho_{\rm csm} \propto r^{-1.63}$
486: to the PSPC (boxes) and HRI (crosses) data points.
487: \label{f3}}
488: \end{figure*}
489:
490:
491: \end{document}
492:
493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
494: %% if Figures are separate:
495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
496:
497: \clearpage
498:
499: \figcaption[f1.ps]
500: {\R\ (0.5--2~keV band) X-ray lightcurve of \93j. Boxes mark PSPC data,
501: HRI data are indicated by crosses. Error bars are $1\sigma$ statistical errors.
502: The dotted line illustrates a $t^{-0.27}$ rate of decline.
503: \label{f1}}
504:
505: \figcaption[f2.ps]
506: {Mass-loss rate history of the \93j\ progenitor.
507: PSPC data are marked by boxes, HRI data are indicated by crosses.
508: \label{f2}}
509:
510: \figcaption[f3.ps]
511: {Circumstellar density profile as a function of SN shell expansion radius.
512: The solid line gives the best-fit CSM profile of $\rho_{\rm csm} \propto r^{-1.63}$
513: to the PSPC (boxes) and HRI (crosses) data points.
514: \label{f3}}
515: