specific radio-isotopes of interest in gamma-ray astronomy. Section \[sec:observations\] calculates the gamma-ray lines predicted from the explosion models from a couple of our calculations to compare to observations. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusions\] draws final conclusions. These 1-dimensional explosions do not include the detailed properties (aspects of which remain unknown) of the central engine and we can not address questions of element production above the iron peak. We also conclude with some discussion of these uncertainties.

![image](M15ProgenAbus_new.pdf){width="0.32\linewidth"} ![image](M20ProgenAbus_new.pdf){width="0.32\linewidth"} ![image](M25ProgenAbus_new.pdf){width="0.32\linewidth"}\
![image](rhovsm.pdf){width="0.32\linewidth"} ![image](tempvsm.pdf){width="0.32\linewidth"} ![image](svsm.pdf){width="0.32\linewidth"}

Methodology
===========

Our study proceeds by taking three-progenitor star models of different ZAMS masses , performing a set of parameterized hydrodynamic explosion simulations and determining their final explosive yields via post-processing nucleosynthesis. Here we review our progenitor models, the explosion models and the details of our NuGrid nuclear network.

Progenitor Models
-----------------

For this calculation we use the same three progenitor models (with metallicities of $z_{\rm metal}=0.02$), with ZAMS masses of 15 M$_{\odot}$, 20 M$_{\odot}$, and 25 M$_{\odot}$, described in detail in @Fryer_2018 using the KEPLER stellar evolution code [@woosley02; @heger05]. The abundances were originally calculated with a reduced set of nuclides in the in-situ KEPLER reaction network. The progenitors are then post-processed through the larger NuGrid MPPNP nuclear reaction 