Alan64

What sort of telescope do you have?

https://www.amazon.com/Meade-DS-114EC-60mm-Reflecting-Telescope/product-reviews/B00004SPCB That kit has been round for many years, twenty or more. Its rudimentary go-to system may work, or not. Hopefully it may be used manually. https://www.manualslib.com/manual/295074/Meade-Ds-114.html It appears to have a 2" focusser, but I doubt if the secondary-mirror is sized for it, to fully illuminate a 2" eyepiece.

You don't want the union too tight, nor too loose, just right rather.

In the end, what is needed are purchasers and testers of these latest models.

The Sky-Watcher 130(not the 130P) has a sphere at f/7, and has been sold for years, if not decades. If it must come to that, then a 102mm at f/6.3 is acceptable.

I had first seen that one, from Orion of California, some time ago, its debut having been in June of this year. I was somewhat astounded, a sphere at f/6.3, and intensely curious. In the end, it's simply a sign of these leaner, meaner times in which we live. It appears that parabolas are to become ever so precious. Orion indicates a maximum power of 204x for its 102mm kit, 50x per inch, and I would certainly hold them to it, not only when observing the Moon.

Yes, I know. Still, we have a mystery on our hands.

Alas, I wish the primary mirrors were parabolic... https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-SkyScanner-BL102mm-TableTop-Reflector-Telescope/rc/2160/p/134763.uts

You have this kit... https://www.celestron.com/products/astromaster-114eq-telescope The mount is an EQ-1, the smallest and least supportive equatorial mount on the planet. The mount is only for the smallest of telescopes, like this Celestron C90 Maksutov... Since round 2000, the manufacturers have combined telescopes that are too large with mounts that are too small, to attract the eye in the case of the "AstroMaster" series, in anodised orange and excessive plastic trimmings. The telescope that you have there is not a Newtonian, oh no. It is a catadioptric-reflector rather, just like my Celestron "PowerSeeker" 127mm... My EQ-1 mount came with that telescope, but I do not use that wee mount with that large of a telescope, nor is your "AstroMaster" EQ-1 suitable for the 114mm catadioptric-reflector; just adequate for visual, but not at all for astro-photography. But cheer up, as you may certainly take photographs with the telescope itself. You will need at least an EQ3-class mount, like the EQ3-2, if not an EQ-5 which would be ideal, support-wise. Both of our reflectors appear as Newtonians, but in the end they are not. Colloquially, both are known as "Bird Jones" telescopes. A catadioptric-reflector, or "Bird Jones", utilises both lenses and mirrors within the optical-train of the telescope... ...the doublet-lens on the left, the spherical primary-mirror on the right. The lens is placed here at the end of the draw-tube of the focusser... The other end is where an eyepiece is inserted; note the thumb-screws. The lens acts as a barlow, doubling the focal-length of the telescope. It is also reputed to correct for spherical aberration, to correct the sphere itself. My 127mm is at f/8, but its sphere is at a native f/4 or thereabouts. Your 114mm is at f/8.8, and its sphere at f/4.4 or so. Indeed, without the lens installed, both of our telescopes are as Newtonians, bad ones at that with their spheres, however they cannot function as classical Newtonians when lens-less. For best performance, collimating both requires removal of the lens-cell from the optical train... After collimation, the lens-cell is re-installed. Many take the lens out of its cell via its slotted retaining-ring. That is incorrect. Rather, the entire cell containing the lens is removed, as shown. That way, the lens isn't soiled, nor flipped out of order. The cell is removed with a tool via these two holes circled in yellow... I made my own tool with oak and nails. Again, do not remove the lens from its cell, ever; unless you'd like to blacken its edge round, to improve contrast and reduce light-scattering...

Hello, and welcome. Have you contacted Meade... https://www.meade.com/ Then, Orion, of California, owns Meade now, and since June of 2021. Do you have an image to share of the telescope's damage?

The AE 32mm Plossl appears identical to my GSO 32mm... The discontinued "Revelation" Plossls were most likely made by GSO as well. The AE 32mm Plossl(23x), or a 2" 32mm 70° eyepiece, would assist the finder in finding objects to observe, and allow for panoramic views of the night sky.

I have a 150mm f/5 Newtonian... It's bright, in its own right, and versatile. You can reduce and even eliminate diffraction effects with a variable-polariser...

The tripod/hub is obviously defective. Let us know as to the outcome, good or bad.

Are you imaging with the telescope, or observing with eyepieces? In any event...

Good, that. Have you a suitable mount in mind?