<p>Another link worth sharing comes from ESO and is called <a href="https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0708b/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Large Magellanic Cloud before and after SN1987A</a>. The link mainly shows the following</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/9O8Km.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/9O8Km.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-18T13:23:56.570Z
Nice photo. The supernova is clearly visible on the right, but I can't distinguish the progenitor from neighboring stars. Perhaps you could add a ([freehand](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19775/878398)) circle to mark it?
WarpPrime
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-18T07:56:11.107Z
2021-05-18T07:56:11.107Z
B--rian
<p>Yes. In fact, there were numerous (photographic plate) images of the star, going as far back as 1899(!). From <a href="http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/04300/04367.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">IAU Circular No. 4367</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>M. L. Hazen, Center for Astrophysics, writes: &quot;No major change in the
brightness of Sk -69 202 was found in a search of the star's area on
502 Harvard blue patrol plates taken 1899-1953 at a focal scale of
600&quot;/mm and on 59 plates of the Damon blue patrol series taken in
1971, 1978-79, and 1981-86 at a focal scale of 580&quot;/mm.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There was also at least one spectrum (<a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970CoTol..89.....S/abstract" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sanduleak 1970</a>), which was the basis for its classification as a B3 I supergiant in Sanduleak's catalog.</p>
<p>Observations of the supernova and retrospective astrometric analysess of the images of established its spatial coincidence with Sanduleak <span class="math-container">$-$</span>69 207 (e.g., <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A%26A...177L...1W/abstract" rel="nofollow noreferrer">West et al. 1987</a>,
<a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...321L..41W/abstract" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Walborn et al. 1987</a>, <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988AJ.....95...58G/abstract" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Girard et al. 1988</a>), which is very suggestive (but not ironclad) evidence that it was the progenitor.</p>
<p>The supernova faded very rapidly in the UV, and so the first post-outburst evidence that Sanduleak <span class="math-container">$-$</span>69 207 had indeed disappeared came from UV observations by the <em>International Ultraviolet Explorer</em> satellite in March, 1987, which found that the remnant UV flux was consistent with the two neighboring main-sequence B stars only, without any of the expected contribution from Sanduleak <span class="math-container">$-$</span>69 207 -- which as a B supergiant would have dominated the UV light if it was still there (e.g., <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987Natur.328..318G/abstract" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gilmozzi et al. 1987</a>).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-20T11:58:21.590Z
2021-05-20T11:58:21.590Z
Peter Erwin
<p>Yes, it is clearly visible in photographs of the LMC from the 1980s.  It is shown in this comparison from the <a href="https://www.maas.museum/observations/2012/02/24/25-years-since-sn1987a-was-discovered/" rel="noreferrer">Australian Astronomical Observatory</a></p>
<p>We know it was this star in the most simple possible way: The supernova occurred exactly at the same location as this star, and when we look now, that star has gone (replaced by a little bipolar supernova remnant)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-18T05:38:21.357Z
2021-05-18T05:38:21.357Z
James K
<p>We all know about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A" rel="noreferrer">SN1987A</a>, the closest observed supernova since Kepler's time. Its progenitor was Sanduleak -69 202, a magnitude 12 blue supergiant, catalogued in 1970. Were there any images of this star before it exploded, and how did we know that this was the star that produced said supernova?</p>

<star><observational-astronomy><supernova>
Were there any images of Sanduleak -69 202 (progenitor of SN1987A) before it exploded?
WarpPrime
# Were there any images of Sanduleak -69 202 (progenitor of SN1987A) before it exploded?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-05-18)

We all know about [SN1987A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A), the closest observed supernova since Kepler's time. Its progenitor was Sanduleak -69 202, a magnitude 12 blue supergiant, catalogued in 1970. Were there any images of this star before it exploded, and how did we know that this was the star that produced said supernova?

**Tags:** star, observational-astronomy, supernova

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-05-18. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

Yes, it is clearly visible in photographs of the LMC from the 1980s. It is shown in this comparison from the [Australian Astronomical Observatory](https://www.maas.museum/observations/2012/02/24/25-years-since-sn1987a-was-discovered/)

We know it was this star in the most simple possible way: The supernova occurred exactly at the same location as this star, and when we look now, that star has gone (replaced by a little bipolar supernova remnant)


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-05-18. Score: 2

Another link worth sharing comes from ESO and is called [The Large Magellanic Cloud before and after SN1987A](https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0708b/). The link mainly shows the following

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/9O8Km.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/9O8Km.jpg)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Nice photo. The supernova is clearly visible on the right, but I can't distinguish the progenitor from neighboring stars. Perhaps you could add a ([freehand](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/19775/878398)) circle to mark it?  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-05-20. Score: 1

Yes. In fact, there were numerous (photographic plate) images of the star, going as far back as 1899(!). From [IAU Circular No. 4367](http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/04300/04367.html):

> M. L. Hazen, Center for Astrophysics, writes: "No major change in the
> brightness of Sk -69 202 was found in a search of the star's area on
> 502 Harvard blue patrol plates taken 1899-1953 at a focal scale of
> 600"/mm and on 59 plates of the Damon blue patrol series taken in
> 1971, 1978-79, and 1981-86 at a focal scale of 580"/mm.

There was also at least one spectrum ([Sanduleak 1970](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970CoTol..89.....S/abstract)), which was the basis for its classification as a B3 I supergiant in Sanduleak's catalog.

Observations of the supernova and retrospective astrometric analysess of the images of established its spatial coincidence with Sanduleak $-$69 207 (e.g., [West et al. 1987](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A%26A...177L...1W/abstract),
[Walborn et al. 1987](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...321L..41W/abstract), [Girard et al. 1988](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988AJ.....95...58G/abstract)), which is very suggestive (but not ironclad) evidence that it was the progenitor.

The supernova faded very rapidly in the UV, and so the first post-outburst evidence that Sanduleak $-$69 207 had indeed disappeared came from UV observations by the *International Ultraviolet Explorer* satellite in March, 1987, which found that the remnant UV flux was consistent with the two neighboring main-sequence B stars only, without any of the expected contribution from Sanduleak $-$69 207 -- which as a B supergiant would have dominated the UV light if it was still there (e.g., [Gilmozzi et al. 1987](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987Natur.328..318G/abstract)).


---

