UFMG 53
0.56
UTI
0.35
CN
1.0
Cdens
0.75
CC3
0.35
Clit
1.0
Cdup
Stellar density (N50/rad)
5.5 [N/pc2]
- CN 0.35 Poorly populated
- Cdens 1.0 Very dense
- CC3 0.75 High quality
- Clit 0.35 Poorly studied
- Cdup 1.0 Unique
Overview
UFMG 53 is a poorly populated, very dense object of high C3 quality. Its parallax locates it at a moderate distance, near the mid-plane, affected by high extinction. It is catalogued as a near-solar metallicity, young cluster, but with a large variance across recent sources for the age and metallicity parameters (see Parameters). It is poorly studied in the literature.
Data
| Reference | Year | RA [deg] | DEC [deg] | Plx [mas] | pmRA [mas/yr] | pmDE [mas/yr] | Rv [km/s] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UCC | 99999â | 195.47 | -64.043 | 0.334 | -8.805 | -0.904 | -24.756 |
| Almeida et al. | 2025 | 195.425 | -64.034 | â | â | â | â |
| Hunt & Reffert | 2024 | 195.497 | -64.04 | 0.321 | -8.793 | -0.941 | -15.844 |
| Cavallo et al. | 2024 | 195.455 | -64.027 | 0.32 | â | â | â |
| Hunt & Reffert | 2023 | 195.497 | -64.04 | 0.321 | -8.793 | -0.941 | -15.844 |
| Dias et al. | 2021 | 195.425 | -64.034 | 0.336 | -8.724 | -0.916 | â |
| Ferreira et al. | 2020 | 195.41 | -64.03 | 0.343 | -8.707 | -0.925 | â |
đĄ Note: The UCC values are estimated from its identified members.
| Reference | Year | Dist [kpc] | Av [mag] | DAv [mag] | Age [Myr] | [Fe/H] [dex] | Mass [Msun] | Bfrac | BSS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UCC | 99999â | 2.89 | 3.11 | 2.09 | 57 | -0.122 | 344 | â | â |
| Almeida et al. | 2025 | 2.89 | 3.11 | â | 14 | â | 305 | â | â |
| Hunt & Reffert | 2024 | â | â | â | â | â | 382(1) | â | â |
| Cavallo et al. | 2024 | 4.88 | 3.01 | â | 380 | -0.410 | â | â | â |
| Hunt & Reffert | 2023 | 2.91 | 3.89 | 2.09 | 57 | â | â | â | â |
| Dias et al. | 2021 | 2.89 | 3.11 | â | 14 | 0.165 | â | â | â |
| Ferreira et al. | 2020 | 2.75 | 4.19 | â | 251 | â | â | â | â |
(N): Indicates that there are N extra values assigned to this parameter in the corresponding reference.
MOCA


Almeida et al. (2025)
Mass determination: invalid due to poor quality CMD. Isochrone match: worst fit.
Cavallo et al. (2024)
Bronze sample.