Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My plan was to observe and estimate the apparent magnitude of the Moon during totality of the June 2011 lunar eclipse, but the clouds rolled in at the exact moment, so I couldn't make any useful estimates. What was the apparent magnitude?

share|cite|improve this question

According to NASA on this page, the penumbral magnitude was 2.6868 and the umbral magnitude was 1.6998. I was guessing that that meant magnitudes/arcsec, but the numbers don't make sense to me, whether eclipse magnitudes are listed as actual brightness or change in magnitude. Shouldn't the umbral magnitude be the larger number in either case?

share|cite|improve this answer
The Penumbral and Umbral magnitudes on that PDF aren't referring to brightness but rather to the fraction of the Moon's diameter immersed in the shadow. Since the umbral magnitude is greater than one, the eclipse was total. This wikipedia article expains what those values mean and how they are computed. – dagorym Jun 21 '11 at 22:47
Drat! Well, that page has the most information about the eclipse of any I found, even if not the datum that the asker wanted. – Andrew Jun 23 '11 at 2:12
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Thank you for the answers! I just received an email from Dr. Richard Keen, turns out the visual magnitude of the eclipse from observers using naked eye, reversed binoculars, and photometry averaged -0.3 and the Danjon L values ranged from 0 to 1.5.

share|cite|improve this answer

I was on the wrong side of the planet to see this eclipse, but I would expect it was an extremely dark eclipse, because the Moon passed very close to the centre of the umbral shadow.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.