Alan64

Celestron loves any vendor who carries and advertises their products. Read reviews of the ones in question before deciding, is all.

Well, I was quite far off the mark; my apologies.

When I "Googled" reviews of the establishment, I saw this right off the bat... "Did you mean: 'Samsung' Electronics reviews" It's a shame B&H Photo doesn't have an "Add to Cart" button for it... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1605873-REG/celestron_12092_1_nexstar_evoution_9_25_telescope.html I may be wrong, but I think this is the first time Celestron has offered their 9.25" on the "Evolution" mount. I was wrong, as it's been available since at least 2015. Don't order it from Amazon, Adorama, Focus Camera, et al. High Point Scientific is good.

If you're close to Australia, there are quite a few astronomy shops there. These go-to kits are good for the planets and double-stars, and a respectable number of deep-sky objects as well... https://www.ozscopes.com.au/meade-lx65-5-mak-cassegrain-telescope.html https://www.ozscopes.com.au/celestron-astro-fi-6-schmidt-cassegrain-telescope.html For galaxies, you want at least a 200mm aperture... https://www.ozscopes.com.au/skywatcher-8-go-to-dobsonian-telescope.html Then, the bigger, the better... https://www.bintel.com.au/product/bintel-bt302-b-12-inch-dobsonian/?v=322b26af01d5

No, there's no need to rush out and get extra eyepieces and accessories, not in the beginning. Choosing eyepieces is not that far removed, as when getting prescription-eyeglasses. Each should be carefully considered before purchasing, and with the telescope's characteristics and the user's needs in mind. Eyepieces are fully one half of the experience. You can't use a telescope without them, nor the eyepieces without the other. The goal is to ensure that there are no weak links within the optical path, and for the clearest, sharpest images possible. You shouldn't need a barlow, but a 150mm aperture can realise up to 300x, if conditions are right, and for glimpses of what few people have ever seen. Up to 150x to 180x should be routinely possible, as it has been with my 150mm Newtonian. At f/10, the telescope will not require corrective and expensive eyepieces; for example... https://agenaastro.com/eyepieces/1-25-eyepieces/shopby/agena_wa.html Why, I got this 8mm eyepiece, salvaged from a pair of binoculars, for less than $10... I then took this afocal-shot of the Moon through it, through a difficult f/5 reflector.... Although, the live view, with the eye, is always sharper than that through a camera. Observing the north star, Polaris, is good practice, as it doesn't move, there in the sky. There is its much smaller, dimmer companion to discover and see. The larger planets will make for a fine show throughout the coming summer. The latitude ranges from 31° to 37° north there in New Mexico. Here, I'm at 34° to 35°, and the planets rise well up above the horizon for a good showing. The southern sky in the summer makes for excellent hunting, and for a variety of objects. Then, there will arise the desire to take snapshots of this, that and the other through the eyepieces, with a "smartphone" or other. Great fun, that is; of the Moon and other, brighter objects.

A 6" Schmidt has a focal-length of 1500mm, and a bit difficult with which to find one's way in the sky with a manual mount, although with the "StarSense" feature in addition, that should make things a bit easier. You may want a 32mm Plossl, and for the lowest power and widest view of the sky... https://agenaastro.com/gso-32mm-plossl-eyepiece.html It's not discontinued. It simply sells out often, then replenished. I finally got one myself... Schmidts, and Maksutovs, due to their longer focal-lengths, need a bit of help to guide them. This will be the largest view of the sky, through the 32mm, as the telescope comes... Not a lot of real estate to be seen at the lowest power(47x), but these types of telescopes do allow for greater ease in realising high-powered views of this and that, up close, and that's what having a telescope is all about. Else, you'd use a pair of binoculars. There is also Celestron's focal-reducer, which will reduce the focal-ratio from f/10 to f/6.3, also the focal-length from 1500mm to 945mm, and for lower-powered and wider views... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/202121-REG/Celestron_94175_f_6_3_Reducer_Corrector.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=Cj0KCQjwvr6EBhDOARIsAPpqUPFVjD1t72csdblt8vRn7qo_9aRe9bVS3zoycStWcTDRvvdEzOEloI8aAvljEALw_wcB There is also this third-party alternative... https://optcorp.com/products/antares-f-6-3-sct-focal-reducer?gclid=Cj0KCQjwvr6EBhDOARIsAPpqUPFsImu7s9zUVW6AKO1iLavDhjaeXzueuiDoNt9rT5uUXnu3DDmna4AaAuFZEALw_wcB Still, it is at the higher and highest powers of which a telescope's aperture is capable where gasps of "Wow!" and "Look at that!" are heard. A dew-shield is not an option, but an absolute necessity, and to the point where they should be included with the kit, or to be suggested within any listing at minimum... https://farpointastro.com/shop/farpoint-dew-shield-celestron-6se-sct/ I got one for my 127mm Maksutov straight away... Now, there in New Mexico, dew may not be a problem so much, as it is here in my region, but the dew-shield will not only protect against wind-blown soil, sand or other, but will also shield the front of the telescope from stray, artificial, and natural(the Moon), sources of light whilst observing.

Yes, low-power observations are easiest, the lower the easier, but a telescope, in the first place, is for seeing faraway objects up close, else you would use a pair of binoculars. Per its focal-length, your C5 is ideal for observing at the higher powers. It's at the higher and highest powers where "Wow!" and "Look at that!" are exclaimed aloud, and where you see what few people have ever seen. I use the lower powers to scan areas of the sky, for hunting. Once I think I've found an object of interest, I increase the power. But when you increase the power, the view of the sky narrows. Also, the object moves more quickly out of view when looking through the eyepiece, which is why wider-field eyepieces are preferred. In addition, the views are less steady at the higher powers. Bumps and knocks are also magnified, along with the object, and to where it looks as though an earthquake is occurring. Ideally, the telescope should be mounted rock-steady, to minimise those effects; on a go-to mount even. I can't use a go-to, as I have far too many trees where I live. My 127mm Maksutov is at f/15, and with a whopping 1900mm focal-length. Even a 40mm or 32mm eyepiece provides a narrow view with that one, but I'm planning on mounting a large optical finder on it, and to help the telescope "see" better, for as it arrived it's blind as a bat.

There are these, and with a modest increase, to 60°... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bst-starguider-eyepieces.html There are many others, of different designs and marques, but not necessarily sold in the UK. Some can even be found on eBay, but you have to know your stuff. Teleskop Service in Germany sells some goodies as well. Now, that's not to say "eyepieces over filters". That all depends upon your needs, or desires, and for you only to decide.

My apologies for responding so late. You have an assortment of Plossl eyepieces there. Those are the minimum nowadays for good viewing. However, you may wish to consider eyepieces with wider fields-of-view. Plossls permit an AFOV of 50° to 52°. Not bad, not at all, but with the f/10 focal-ratio of the telescope, you can get eyepieces from 60° to 70°, for not too much more expense compared to a Plossl, and still enjoy quality views. Telescopes with longer and longer-still focal-lengths do not require corrective, more costly, eyepieces, and for satisfactory observations. If you haven't gotten one already, you may also consider a dew-shield for the telescope, and to keep moisture(dew), bugs, dirt, dust, and pollen off of the corrector-plate at the front of the telescope, the "lens".

Bump 'n' nudge is the name of the game with a Newtonian-Dobson, or "Dobsonian". The larger the aperture, the longer the focal-length, and the more often you will have to play said game. Orion(of California) and Sky-Watcher "Dobsonians", both of their parent-company, Synta of China, have in recent years been equipped with go-to systems, motors that provide automatic tracking. On the bright side, I have read that users do become adept at the manual motioning over time.

I would suggest a 1.25" 32mm 50° Plossl, and for the widest view possible. Your GSO "SuperView" 20mm that you have already offers a view almost as wide, but not quite. The 32mm(yellow) and the 20mm(red) compared... I have this GSO 32mm, and it's very good... https://agenaastro.com/gso-32mm-plossl-eyepiece.html It's a hot-seller, routinely going out of and into stock. Currently, there are only 5 left. Also, for the sharpest images, especially at the higher and highest powers of which the 5" aperture is capable, ensure that the Newtonian's collimation is as accurate as possible.

I have an ES/Bresser 127/1900 Gregorian, spot Maksutov. The Sky-Watcher is the same type. The iOptron is a Rumak Maksutov. It's heavier, with a larger secondary-obstruction, and requiring a longer acclimation period. Any obstruction will degrade an image; the larger, the worse. Such may be inconsequential or negligible whilst observing DSOs, but for the Moon, and the planets especially, the smaller the obstruction the better. Also, the iOptron is said to provide a flatter field-of-view. There is also the Bresser150/1900 to consider as well.

Oh, how lovely, a rain-gauge, however what a dreadful portent.

Just a few decades, and longer ago, quite a few telescope kits came with wooden tripods, even those kits that were small and inexpensive... That's my very first telescope, a 60mm achromat, and in direst need of restoration. Wood dampens vibrations better than aluminum, and perhaps steel as well. But in this day and age, after our seemingly having been jettisoned into the future, wood is out, and aluminum and steel are in. It seems as though wood for these kits has become scarcer, therefore more costly; or, its omission in the interest of conservation. I don't need a whole tree for my wooden tripods... Before I had rediscovered and restored the wooden legs for the tripod on the left, I had been considering cobbling together a larger wooden tripod, and from a surveyor's tripod; new or used, no matter, as long as they were of wood... A bit of DIY work, yes, yet worth the effort in my opinion. Newer surveyors' tripods also come with legs of fibreglass, and that can be preferable over aluminum and steel as well.

If I'm not mistaken, it's called a T-adaptor, the threads being T-threads.

This is the area on your 660 in question... The red-dot unit is fastened to its mounting stalk, and with that screw on the side of the unit most likely. If the stalk is missing, let us know. With these entry-level telescopes, the manufacturer is going to provide a good telescope. In the case of the 660, that refers to the doublet-lens at the front of the telescope... That's one of my own 60mm refractors. However, the eyepieces and accessories that come with these kits oft fall short of one's expectations. The images will only be as good as the weakest item, the weakest link, inserted into the light-path of the telescope, whether an eyepiece, diagonal or barlow... The atmosphere plays a part in that, too. At times, it can make one think that there's something wrong with the telescope when there isn't.

The original red-dot finder bolted on two studs rising up from the telescope's tube... If your new finder is the same as or similar to this one... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/celestron-starpointer-red-dot-finderscope.html That's a replacement for a bad finder. You remove the old one from the mounting stalk, if possible, then attach the new one. If that's not the finder you purchased, we will need to see which one you did get. Then we'll go from there.

This is the OP's kit... https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/celestron-powerseeker-660-21041-ar-463187696 ...a 60mm f/11 refractor. I would suggest quite a few items to enhance the refractor's performance: a 32mm and a 12mm Plossl, perhaps a star-prism diagonal, and a quality 2x-barlow.

In addition, elsewhere within another site, a star-mirror diagonal would not come to focus with that 70mm f/13, and I had replied that a star-prism will with my own. If a star-diagonal is acquired in this instance, to play it safe a star-prism is suggested.

Hmm, I was wondering upon first reading of this thread if there was something wrong with the OP's draw-tube, perhaps broken rack-teeth, or other. But then, my own is a 70mm at f/13; the OP's a 90mm at f/10. Still, that is awfully short if that's far as the draw-tube can be racked outward. It does seem to warrant a disassembly of the focusser for inspection. Oh, I was under the standing that the OP did not have a diagonal at all; the kit used, in other words.

You need a star-diagonal, for use at night. The telescope came with an Amici, erect-image diagonal. The Amici diagonal is provided so that you can use it during the day for terrestrial objects, and at night, but it's primarily for use during the day. A star-diagonal is for use only at night, and is the ideal for that... I have that same oddly-designed focusser on my "AstroMaster" 70EQ, and I despise it. I'm always looking for a conventional, traditional replacement for it, but I haven't found one yet.

If you get it going, it makes for a suitable alternative for a 114mm Schmidt-Cassegrain. I have Celestron's 127mm "Bird Jones"... When it first arrived, the images were awful, but then eventually I got it collimated. Jupiter, before... It was much worse than that during the live view, with ghosts of the planet surrounding that. After collimation... ...and Saturn... Now, those afocal shots are not as good as what I saw live; almost tack-sharp they were. I would recommend using a collimation-cap and Cheshire to collimate the telescope however. The secondary-scene as seen through both tools... With those tools, you can see what's actually taking place whilst collimating. I feel that it's more precise; but that, of course, is up to the owner of the telescope.

Yes it does have a crayford-type focusser. My JMI crayford is without grease, but I know nothing about the Synta crayfords.

These telescopes, and most all others, are made in China. You get only just so much finish and precision as a result. If it were before me, I would remove the focusser, disassemble it, and correct where lacking, if possible. Failing that, I would replace the focusser with one of better quality. Oh, incidentally, a focusser for imaging usually requires more precision, compared to that for visual-use with eyepieces. The 200P will have a visual focusser, as the 200P-DS is configured overall, the focusser included, for imaging primarily. But that's not to say its focusser would be any better in so far as the shifting when locked, although I would expect so. Sometimes a disassembly can help fix certain isuues. Where there is factory-grease, that can be cleaned away and replaced with that of better quality, like Super Lube, a PTFE(Teflon)-based grease. Who knows, perhaps it was not assembled properly at the factory, a mass-production facility. A careful disassembling and cleaning can work wonders for that mechanical. If you decide on that, take photographs every step of the way, as a guide when reassembling.

I see that you got a 90/660 refractor recently, and a very nice kit at that. I have a copy of "The Backyard Astronomer's Guide", and enjoyed it. It was damaged some years later, along with a lot of other books I had. These days I like to read these types of books on astronomy... https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=patrick+moore&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&rt=nc&LH_PrefLoc=1