Is it Rho Cassiopeiae or Mu Sagittarii?
I see in the Stellarium 0.13.0 that Mu Sagittarii has absolute magnitude -11.43!!
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
-
$\begingroup$ The sun, obviously! But don't think you can look directly at it with the naked eye. Well, you could, but that might be the last thing you see ;). $\endgroup$ – rubenvb Jul 2 '15 at 18:17
-
2$\begingroup$ No, the absolute magnitude of the Sun is only around 4.75. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Jul 2 '15 at 20:06
-
$\begingroup$ You should see Absolute magnitude $\endgroup$ – Ab_Sh Jul 2 '15 at 20:43
-
1$\begingroup$ @Johannes supernova?! Of course not. Only stars, this contains variable stars. $\endgroup$ – Ab_Sh Apr 9 '16 at 13:21
-
1$\begingroup$ @Johannes From Wikipedia: A supernova is an astronomical event that occurs during the last stellar evolutionary stages of a massive star's life, whose dramatic and catastrophic destruction is marked by one final titanic explosion. For a short time, this causes the sudden appearance of a 'new' bright star, before slowly fading from sight over several weeks or months. $\endgroup$ – Ab_Sh Apr 9 '16 at 17:04
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Mu Sagittarii is a star system, not a single star. If that can be included, then Eta Carinae should be included, and it has an absolute magnitude of -12.0. It's a star system about 7,500 light-years from Earth.
It looks like the brightest (absolute magnitude) single star visible to the unaided eye is WR 24 (in Carina Nebula). Its absolute magnitude is −11.1 and apparent magnitude is 6.48, so just barely visible.
source: Wikipedia - List of most luminous known stars
edit: Rho Cassiopeiae's absolute magnitude is -9.5.
