Alan64

That looks to be an EQ2-class equatorial mount, perhaps inching towards an EQ-3. You should be able to transform it into an alt-azimuth. You would need to use the counterweight still, and both slow-motion controls can be used as well...

Your local hardware should have those. Take the telescope with you, introduce them to your sample of the master's industry. They'll get a kick out of that, and should be delighted to help. This is how the assembly is constructed. There's the centre-screw and its spring, and the three adjustment-screws; simple... If I'm not mistaken, all of those screws are M3. The centre-screw, however, may, I say may, be an M4. However, for the three adjustment screws, get the socket-head type instead of the Phillips; for example... That way, you can turn the screws with the thumb and forefinger to adjust, then a hex-key to tighten. Learn, know, and master the secondary-assembly of your Newtonian; its faults and foibles, its twists and turns, and you'll be golden.

You can contact Celestron. E-mail them, and tell them about your 114/900, and how it needs a new draw-tube, at least. The rack, on the draw-tube, is of plastic, therefore the teeth as well. The pinion-gear, however, is of metal, and is what chewed up the rack's teeth through abuse/misuse.

That 130/900 Newtonian is a rather nice instrument. The secondary-hub, the spider-vanes and the cowling are all in one piece. This is the cowling from my Celestron 127/1000, which is the same as your own... Are those three screws missing?

My profound apologies for the late reply, Blakey. You don't have to do everything I did to my own to get it working well, not at all. I do feel that it would be within your capabilities to simply take each axis apart, clean out the old factory-grease, off of the parts and washers, replace that with a better grade of grease, like Super Lube or a marine-type grease, and put it back together. You can refer to my images within that thread, or take your own photographs, and to aid in reassembling. Then, if you'd rather not take anything apart, check each axis for looseness or tightness, and simply adjust the lock-nuts of each axis accordingly... The RA lock-nut... The DEC lock-nut; the three shiny set-screws are backed off, then the large black nut can then be unscrewed. After adjusting the nut, you tighten the set-screws... Then, adjust the RA-worm assembly, if needed... https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/319273-meade-large-equatorialeq-2-hyper-tuning/?do=findComment&comment=3492379 If you exercise reasonable caution, you won't break anything. Just take your time, don't be in a hurry.

You'd want the lowest profile focusser you can find, a very, very low helical-type; no knobs, and as nigh flush to the tube's surface as possible; for example... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-2-to-125-low-profile-helical-focuser.html You may have to work at fitting it to a 130mm's tube-diameter. Or, you can cut the tube down, albeit a bit drastic. I would want to take it to a shop for that.

I can't use a full go-to system myself. I have far too many trees on my property. There are more articles and blogs online about building your own Newtonian-Dobson than you can shake a stick at, so you're good to go there. I have this 200/1000 Newtonian that needs a mount, and I will probably have to resort to building a Dobson mount for it as well... I've had it for almost twenty years, but I've yet to observe with it, and I'm not getting any younger. The one thing that troubles me about building a mount for it is that Wilsonart's "Ebony Star" type-50 laminate is no longer available. I and others will need to find a substitute.

The bronze sheets arrived a few days ago... Both sets are 0.008" in thickness, but the smaller set on the right was advertised as being 0.006" thick. Now that I think about it, those two smaller sheets are the same size as I have gotten in the past. Well, no matter, as they'll come in handy nonetheless.

Oh dear, the worms, yes; those are going to give me trouble as well.

Yes! You have the "Capricorn"; same telescope, and both, undoubtedly, made by Synta.

I got this Celestron "AstroMaster" kit about four years ago. It came with a 70mm f/12.9 achromat... At some point after its receipt, I began to make improvements. I blackened and flocked the refractor, from fore to aft, and even made the lens-cell and the focusser's housing adjustable, collimatable. But then I encountered this... ...the focusser, the manner in which the draw-tube fits into the housing, its design... ...atrocious. Although, at the time that I got the kit, I wasn't wanting the refractor, only the EQ-1 mount. I tried, tried, and tried to enable the draw-tube to rack in and out firmly yet smoothly, but most importantly, square and true. I failed. The bizarre, proprietary design is simply unworkable. If I want to right it, I will need to contact Celestron and beg, plead, for a "PowerSeeker" 70mm focusser. But at present, such is not a priority, as the focusser of this new Meade is normal, traditional... The focusser-housing and draw-tube of the Meade "Polaris" 70mm are of plastic, and unlike those of the Meade "Polaris" 90mm which are of metal, utterly... But that came as no surprise, as they're not going to place a metal focusser on a 70mm, not at its price-point. They're simply not taken that seriously, regrettably. Recently, last month, Orion of California "annexed" Meade. The kit from which this Meade achromat came has been discontinued, and is out of stock everywhere. I didn't need another EQ-1 mount, only the OTA, which I got, and "just in the nick of time", as it remains to be seen as to what will become of the Meade product line. There were a couple of issues with this achromat upon its arrival. The listing described it as being "new", but I found a dead mosquito at the edge of the doublet adjacent to its plastic retaining-ring. At first I thought it was plastic sprue, but no. That would seem to indicate that the refractor had been outdoors at night, under the stars, to be tested at least, or simply used for observing, the Moon only most likely; perhaps Jupiter and/or Saturn. But I'm not going to quibble over that, as this achromat is now a greatest of rarities. Then, there's this... ...no dovetail-bar. The bar was installed at the factory. You can see the line there, where it was, once. That's not an optional item, like the red-dot finder that was stated within the listing as not being included. I have the tube-rings that I had bought for the Celestron, and a spare bar, but still. I don't like fixed bars, but I've contacted the seller nonetheless. In time, this achromat will be enhanced, and for a worthy addition to my collection.

...finally arrived. It was shipped on the 10th of June... The box contains an OTA only, and the box being part of a kit's package, hence the cardboard of the box being quite thin, yet the OTA was shipped in same. I'm surprised it arrived undamaged. The box did get rumpled a bit in transit, but the OTA was unscathed, most thankfully. I received the package earlier this afternoon, on the 3rd, but earlier this morning the USPS tracking stated still, "Shipping Label Created, USPS Awaiting Item..." Also, the package was sent "Priority Mail", for which a premium is paid, but it was as though it had shipped from China. Our postal service on this side of the pond is laughable. I do hope the Royal Mail is quite the opposite. I'd be aghast, quite surprised, otherwise. It is very difficult these days to find an achromat longer than f/11, save for a 60mm f/15. Now, in refractorland, even a seemingly insignificant increase of 2mm is in reality quite significant. If desirous of a grab-and-go refractor, with minimal to no false-colour apparent, yet a fun and economical achromat, then one must choose a refractor such as this... ...a 70mm, 10mm extra, and at f/12.9... I got the last one... https://i.imgur.com/kE9FyrQ.jpg In addition, with its 900mm focal-length, it plays ideally with the general 4mm-to-40mm range of eyepieces, and to where a 2x-barlow is quite the option, rather than a necessity. The longer the focal-length, the easier it is to reach the higher and highest powers of which a given aperture is capable. That's what a telescope is for in the first place, to see faraway objects up close. Else, you'd use just your eyes or a pair of binoculars. Its fine doublet is of good ole crown and flint glasses, tried and true, and since 1727, or thereabouts. It is quite understandable to be proud of Sir Issac and his Newtonian... But the achromatic-refractor was developed, invented, by an Englishman as well: Chester Moore Hall... "Not a lot of people know that." - Benny Hill Then, by the 1750s, John Dollond, another Englishman, began the achromat's mass-production, although still quite a long way off from today's numbers.

Indeed, you can get those righted quite easily with the J-B Weld. I would then, further, overlay the repairs with aluminum sheet; for example... https://www.hswalsh.com/product/ks-metals-aluminium-aluminum-sheet-256-0032-081mm-fz256 Or, twice the thickness if you'd prefer. The thicker, the better... https://www.hswalsh.com/product/ks-metals-aluminium-aluminum-sheet-257-0064-16mm-fz257 You can punch a hole through the sheet, slightly larger than the diameter of the threaded-insert, and to form a collar, a flange, round and up the sides of the insert. You would use the J-B Weld in attaching that as well. Those inserts would then give you no more trouble.

You wouldn't need a new mount w/tripod. You're simply having trouble with the leg-clamps. Breaks and cracks within those can be repaired with J-B Weld epoxy... https://www.amazon.co.uk/JB-WELD-MAC8265-S-TEX-8265-S-Weld/dp/B0006O1ICE I had to repair a metal clamp for one of my larger tripods... For another tripod, all three of the anchors for the spreader popped off... You can effect a much tidier repair using J-B Weld. All surfaces to be joined should be roughened, and cleaned thoroughly of any dirt, grease and oil. The adhesive takes 24 hours to cure, then it's golden. That's in addition to any clips or straps you might wish to add afterwards. Instead of those, however, you can use the J-B Weld to attach thin sheets of aluminum over the areas, taping or strapping those down temporarily until cured. The backs of the metal sheets and the surfaces to which they're attached should be roughened. I have used J-B Weld with great success in many repairs to my telescopic items. The stuff has been used to repair cracks in engine-blocks even. Incidentally, I would be interested in seeing an image of the worst of the damage.

If that old, it was made in either Japan(unlikely), or Taiwan; perhaps China possibly, as they started gearing up their cloning operations in the late 1990s. I can't purchase a new EQ-2 here in the States; only within kits, with a telescope in tow. If you like yours well enough, you might consider getting another... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-eq2-mount-tripod.html ...or try to find a used one.

"The worm is actually in perfect condition. It seems to be made out of much stronger metal than the ra gear!" This RA-gear is from a spare "AstroMaster" EQ-1 head that was sent to me by Celestron under warranty... Thank goodness I didn't need a replacement gear. All I had done was to damage the worm's aluminum tension-nut... I didn't know about the set-screw, and that it required backing off before unscrewing that nut. I sent that image to Celestron, along with my confession. They knew it was my fault, but they covered it anyway. Some folks simply shouldn't be around telescopes and mounts, including myself. Did you get your EQ-2 used, and was it in that state upon its arrival?

In what condition is the worm itself?

You can actually see the damage, or might it be that the RA-worm is not engaging the RA-gear fully, yet not so tightly as to bind it up... That's from my Meade EQ-2, incidentally. Interestingly, Meade calls it their "Large Equatorial".

Back in the olden days, the leg-brackets were made of metal... ...and the legs themselves of wood. What I have found with the modern entry-level kits, of which I have a few, is that the mount included with a telescope, from Synta's standpoint, is to at least get the telescope up off of the ground for a spell, and at best, to last until one might eventually acquire a replacement. There is an alternative to a tripod: a pier instead. Such may be more easily crafted with wood, or PVC-pipe, or a combination of the two. There are permanent piers, set into the ground with concrete, but there are portable piers as well. The tripod-hub is then attached to the top of the pier. Your 130/900 Newtonian is most deserving of the effort to effect such.

I suppose that's true, for professional pursuits.

Thank you. I suppose, if I sat my mind down to it, I might manage an alt-azimuth; but heavens no, not an equatorial. I do manage to improve on what the manufacturers overseas produce. But I do have to have the initial precision afforded by their equipment.

https://stellafane.org/tm/dob/index.html For astrophotography however, to "see" galaxies and nebulae, an equatorial mount is essential.

Alas, I can't place a bearing on the other side, down into the rabbit's hole... ...but a bronze washer will be added there instead. Whether or not the bearing-surface or its mate will bear against the washer is anybody's guess, but I can't take the chance without one.

The 30x47x2(mm) needle-thrust bearing, from VXB Bearings in California, arrived this late morning, and for the DEC-axis. It fits snugly, like a charm, over the DEC pipe, yet spins freely... That's the result of the 30mm I.D. However, I took a gamble, a risk, in getting this bearing with its 47mm O.D. I would've preferred a 40mm, but that was not written in the stars to be. It almost falls in where it's supposed to fit, but it will snap in, and is easily popped back out... The inner wall of the cavity is perhaps 46mm in diameter, at least. There's a wee bit of over-spray, paint, there within, but after I sand that smooth, perhaps grind just a bit round the bearing itself, it should then fall in place and spin freely. The bearing will be sandwiched bewixt two bronze washers, lovingly crafted by yours truly. Can't have steel bearing against aluminum in both directions, gracious no. Admittedly, this bearing may only amount to fluff, and nothing more, but I wanted at least one within this axis.

I took the lemon... ...and made lemonade. Almost there... <grind, grind, grind, polish> That now being the RA secondary-washer. I will be making another RA primary-washer once the new sheets of bronze arrive. I endeavoured to make the secondary as snug as possible, as the bearing surface at the bottom of the well is quite narrow... If only it was wider, I'd feel better about it.