Alan64

For a Schmidt or a Maksutov, heating-strips are applied round the front of the telescope. A heated dew-shield should be ample for your CC, if not an unheated one. You won't see dew-shields within the sales-listings of any telescope, not as an option, a suggested accessory, nothing. One of, if not the strongest selling-point of all Cassegrains is the short tube, therefore the manufacturers and their vendors are not going to endanger sales, to say the least. It's most irresponsible on their part, I might add. Then, I doubt that you'll ever see a CC sporting one within an image online, as not that many amateurs own a CC in the first place, let alone a dew-shield for one. Isn't it attractive; nice 'n' short? "I want one!"... Alas, it's not so pretty now, is it... I would like to have a CC myself some day, but it would never exit the house without a dew-shield fitted; unless I lived out west where it's dry as a bone, even at night.

The Stellalyra, Orion, GSO, and TS are all manufactured by GSO. Orion manufactures nothing. Synta, GSO, et al manufactures all Orion products. I live just 25 miles south of Memphis, north of you. We both live in a humid, subtropical climate-zone... On February 6th, 2016, I took my 6" f/5 Newtonian out for a look-see. To my horror, the telescope began to frost(frozen dew) over. It covered the mirrors, even the primary... I then took an afocal-shot of the Moon, through an eyepiece, at right. In that you live farther south, you may find that you'll need an electrical, heated dew-shield even.

The AA listing mentions a GSO RC(Ritchey-Chretien), which appears identical on the outside to a GSO classical-Cassegrain. So much so that vendors have mistakenly included an image of a GSO RC within listings for a GSO CC. GSO manufactures the Orion CC, incidentally. But you would need to research that further. Then... Despite a CC not have having a corrector-plate, like a SCT or MCT which are prone to dew, I strongly suggest that you get a dew-shield for your CC. There's an excellent possibility that a shield for a C6 SCT will fit... https://farpointastro.com/shop/farpoint-dew-shield-celestron-6se-sct/ Shipping is free. The one for the C5 SCT fits my ES/Bresser 5" Maksutov like a glove... However, it's best to wait until the telescope arrives, then to measure the diameter of the CC where the dew-shield will be attached, then go from there. The outside diameter of a C6 is 7.1" or 181mm there at the front. Don't think for a moment that dew, moisture, cannot reach both mirrors within a CC. An ounce of prevention...so it is said.

Congratulations on the classical-Cassegrain. I've suggested it in the past to others, but I didn't know if you'd go for it, and there you have it. You can image with the telescope. It's just that it will require more precise tracking.

The factory(ies) overseas tightens those screws tighter than <insert here>, and for shipment, for the collimation to hold until it's delivered to the end-user. My own base, Synta 150mm f/5 no less, and as a result the collimation was spot-on upon arrival. But then, not too terribly long afterwards I took the telescope completely apart for renovating. One of the things I did was to epoxy a nylon-washer for the three set-screws to bear against, arrowed at right... I've also thought about a washer of iron, but stainless-steel might be even better. Do sand/score where matte-black is to be applied, and inward to just before where the tips of the screws would make contact, all round.

All entry-level focussers, whether of plastic or metal, whether a refractor or Newtonian, the parts are all there, except those that enable the draw-tube to rack in and out straight and true; with no wobbles or slop, yet easily and smooth as fresh-churned butter. The factories are not going to provide that which can transform the focusser into a serviceable unit, and for decades... https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/314294-the-synta-wonky-plastic-focusser-fix/ https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/323772-meade-polaris-90mm-f10-achromat/?do=findComment&comment=3528023 https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/323772-meade-polaris-90mm-f10-achromat/?do=findComment&comment=3528901 PTFE, or HDPE... https://www.directplastics.co.uk/ptfe-sheet https://www.directplastics.co.uk/hdpe-sheet

I landed this 80mm f/6 achromat(an ST80 is at f/5) several years ago... I took that image whilst observing Comet 46P-Wirtenan about a couple of years ago, with a 2" 32mm 70° ocular and a 2" WO star-mirror diagonal. The view was most spacious. I watched the comet transit among the background stars long enough to verify that that was indeed the comet. My own came with a 2" focusser. However, an 80mm f/5 achromat, in all its models and under differing marques, comes with a 1.25" rather. Synta offers a 102mm f/5 achromat under its Sky-Watcher branding, but a 102mm f/5 exhibits increased false-colour over an 80mm f/5. A veritable kaleidoscope it would be, albeit when viewing brighter objects. The one I feel that would be ideal is this one, a Meade "Infinity" 102mm f/6, and to compensate the aforementioned... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Meade-Instruments-Infinity-Refractor-Telescope/dp/B00LY8JWAQ?th=1 But I'm not seeing it available there in the UK, let alone the latest Meade "StarPro" 102mm f/6. Both are available across the "pond", from New York, yet are back-ordered... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1061426-REG/meade_209006_infinity_102mm_altazimuth_refractor.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1438312-REG/meade_234004_starpro_az_102mm_f_6_5.html I believe that the metal focussers of both are 2". Both are also available from this vendor... https://www.astroshop.eu/telescopes/meade-telescope-ac-102-660-starpro-az/p,59589 https://www.astroshop.eu/telescopes/meade-telescope-ac-102-600-infinity-az/p,51480

I have a Celestron "Bird Jones" as well: a 127mm f/8, and with a focal-length of 1000mm... It, too, came with the same eyepieces and that worthless barlow. The 20mm is not all that good. The 4mm, actually, is quite good. I took snapshots of Jupiter and Saturn through the bundled 4mm inserted into that telescope... The live view was much sharper. However, upon arrival, the images were terrible. I saw two or three of everything. I then collimated the telescope, and voila. I sincerely hope that yours is collimated as it arrived, because it's a rather involved process to collimate a "Bird Jones". Yes, get some good eyepieces: a 32mm Plossl and a 12mm Plossl... https://www.365astronomy.com/32mm-GSO-Plossl-Eyepiece.html https://www.365astronomy.com/12mm-GSO-Plossl-Eyepiece.html If you want a barlow, all you need is a quality 2x... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/antares-x2-achromat-fmc-barlow-lens-125.html I have that one, along with the 3x under that marque. They're keepers, and for life. You can barlow both Plossls for differing powers. Do give that 4mm that came with the telescope another chance someday. My own is very good for a basic eyepiece... ...again, much sharper live. But the telescope must be collimated spot-on.

A 6" Schmidt(C6) is lighter in weight compared to a 6" Maksutov(Skymax 150), but the secondary-obstruction of the Schmidt is larger than that of the Maksutov. Albeit, a 6" Maksutov takes longer to acclimate, and due to its thicker correcting-plate, or meniscus. All telescopes require acclimation before observing can begin; refractors the quickest, Maksutovs the slowest. However, of all the mirrored designs of telescopes, a Maksutov does come closest to simulating the performance of an ED or apochromatic refractor. Here's a comparison of the obstructions between a C5 f/10 Schmidt(left) and my own 127mm f/15 Maksutov(right)... A telescope's secondary-obstruction is akin to a cataract of the human eye, which reduces sharpness and contrast. This is the Maksutov I have... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1291487-REG/explore_scientific_fl_mc1271900tn_firstlight_127mm_f_15_alt_az.html The Orion and Sky-Watcher 127mm f/12 Maksutovs have an effective aperture somewhat less than advertised; approximately 118-120mm. The ES(US) and Bresser(Europe) 127mm f/15 Maksutovs are at a full 127mm, and with somewhat smaller obstructions, which is why I chose an ES over the former. A 5"/127mm Maksutov is the sweet-spot among the varying apertures of the design; not too large, nor too small, just right rather. A 127mm would acclimate faster than a 150mm, and would be lighter in weight of course. Both Schmidts and Maksutovs are for seeing objects up close, which is what a telescope is for in the first place. Else, one would use their eyes or a pair of binoculars. A Maksutov, in particular, is like a microscope, but for the sky. In addition, the majority of deep-sky objects are small, and will fit within the view through a Maksutov at the lowest power(59x, for the ES). Celestron does offer a focal-reducer for their C-series Schmidts, shortening the focal-ratio from f/10 to f/6.3. Such enables somewhat lower powers and somewhat wider views. Maksutovs may make use of such as well. But in the end, I would think that both types of telescopes perform best at their native configurations; f/10, f/12, and f/15.

A short-focus Newtonian and a long-focus Maksutov are at the extremes; the Newtonian for low-to-medium powers and wider views of the sky, and the Maksutov for medium-to high powers with a narrow(er) view of the sky. Newtonian... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/468744-USA/Vixen_Optics_2604_R130Sf_5_1_130mm_Reflector_Telescope.html You won't need a 2" diagonal, or a diagonal at all, with a Newtonian. Maksutov... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1141693-REG/sky_watcher_s11520_127mm_maksutov_cassegrain_ota.html That make and model comes with a 2" visual-back, and a 2" diagonal to boot. There is also this economical yet very good ED-refractor to consider... https://www.astronomics.com/astro-tech-at102ed-4-f-7-ed-refractor-ota.html

Ah, then you know just how beastly an equatorial can be. With the counterweights required, per this telescope and that, it is rightly the equivalent of hauling out, then in, a mount, and two telescopes.

I don't like my CG-4. It's in the "Twilight Zone" among equatorials as far as I'm concerned. If you ever do want an equatorial, the EQ5-class mounts are the sweet-spot among equatorials, just the weight of a small sack of sugar over an EQ3-class; and just as a 127mm Maksutov is among the varying apertures of its design. Yet an EQ-5 is much more versatile. If you're going to huff 'n' puff and lug out either one, make it an EQ-5. If you don't have a proper dew-shield for your Maksutov, do get one straight away. I didn't take my own outdoors at all until I got one for it... Enjoy.

The OP's telescope is a 127mm Maksutov; a short tubed telescope. Yes, I suppose with a long-focus achromat that that would be problematic. Hence, let this be a lesson to those with long-focus refractors; and long-focus Newtonians perhaps?

If CAD400, that's equivalent to about USD300, which is an amount whereby you can avoid the typical, entry-level kits, of which I have a few. For example, this one cost me only US$139... It's not a bad kit, not at all, and with a 114mm aperture. I got this one for $299, but I suspect it was a promotional at the time, as it's now back up to about $450... https://khanscope.com/collections/explore-scientific/products/explore-scientific-firstlight-127-mm-maksutov-cassegrain-telescope-on-twilight-nano-alt-az-mount-fl-mc1271900tn That's a 127mm Maksutov. It's like a microscope, but for the sky; for medium-high to high powered views. It's a close simulation of a long-tube, long-focus refractor, but within a compact, short tube. Other options... https://khanscope.com/collections/sky-watcher/products/heritage-p130-5-tabletop-dobsonian-telescope-31002 (for low-to-higher powered views of practically everything in the sky) https://kwtelescope.com/classic-150p-dobsonian/ (for medium-to-high powered views of the planets and deep-sky objects) https://kwtelescope.com/starpro-az-102mm-refractor/ (for low-to-medium powered views of dimmer objects) https://khanscope.com/collections/explore-scientific/products/explore-scientific-firstlight-4-inch-doublet-refractor-on-twilight-nano-equatorial-mount-fl-ar1021000eq3 (for medium-to-high powered views of the planets and deep-sky objects) https://khanscope.com/collections/meade/products/polaris-90mm-german-equatorial-refractor-216003 (for medium-to-high powered views of the planets and deep-sky objects) https://khanscope.com/collections/meade/products/meade-s102-mm-refractor-telescope-on-alt-az-mount-708010 (for low-to-medium powered views of dimmer objects) There are only four types of telescopes in the marketplace from which to choose: refractors, Newtonians, and Maksutov- and Schmidt-Cassegrains.

If for visual-use only, I would suggest motorising the RA-axis only, and to the point whereby I had removed the DEC cable from the hand-controller from my own Celestron dual-drive kit, and for my own CG-4... But pay no attention to this madman, as I've yet to use the mount and motors, and likely never will, as I'm now wanting an EQ5-class mount instead. I have read in the past that amateurs usually prefer to manually adjust the DEC-axis, for what that's worth. I also know of at least one instance whereby a user attached this motor-drive to their CG-4, and successfully... https://www.365astronomy.com/Celestron-RA-Motor-Drive-EQ-AstroMasters-and-PowerSeekers.html The nice thing about that drive is that the speed is adjustable. I have one myself, but I haven't made use of it yet; soon, I hope, and with my EQ-1. For a CG-4, I would suspect perhaps a bit of DIY in attaching it to the mount. If you require dual-drives, for imaging, then please disregard my reply.

There are after-market, stand-alone mounts of different types: a simple, tripod type alt-azimuth; or an equatorial, which can track objects for you, especially when motorised, but there is a learning-curve with equatorials. Then, there are the go-to mounts, either an alt-azimuth or an equatorial. All are differing types of mounts for various tasks, and at varying price-points. One of the simplest and easiest-to-use upgrades for the "Heritage" 130P or 150P... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth-astronomy-mounts/sky-watcher-az5-deluxe-alt-azimuth-mount.html The 150mm f/8 Newtonian of the "Skyliner" 150P has been a classic, tried-and-true instrument for decades... That advertisement being from 1963. The kits were more costly back then, as the mounts were robust; of metal, and motor-driven. Telescopes were more costly in general during that era, and up to about the year 2000. But since that time, the 150mm f/8 Newtonian has remained a constant, popular choice. I won't tell you which one to get, in the end. All have their strengths and weaknesses, which have already been discussed. But I would research the choices thoroughly before deciding, for the long run.

Actually, the "Heritage" 150P is at f/5, which is more difficult to collimate than the "Skyliner" 150P at f/8. In addition, the "Heritage" is a collapsible, which further complicates collimation. Then, there's the helical-focusser of the "Heritage", which isn't quite up to snuff compared to the far superior focusser of the "Skyliner".

A 150mm f/5 is versatile, for observing practically every object in the night sky satisfactorily, from a low 23x to 200x and beyond, the latter if the collimation is spot-on. A barlow or two, or very short focal-length eyepieces, would be required to reach the higher powers. However, a 150mm f/8 Newtonian-Dobson better fits the purpose of a telescope, and to see faraway objects up close. Simpler, less-costly eyepieces will give a good show, and collimation is indeed easier at f/8. Also, the secondary-obstruction is smaller, resulting in somewhat sharper, more contrasty images. The power with a 150mm f/8 can be as low as 21x, with a 2" 56mm Plossl, whilst keeping the exit-pupil just within limits, and for the hunting of objects. But then you have the physical sizes of the kits. The 150mm f/8 would be a bit more difficult to store and carry about, yet with improved stability whilst observing.

In choosing either a short-tube refractor or Newtonian, in this case the latter, optical performance is sacrificed for ergonomics(easier to store, carry, travel with). The planets, to see them well and up-close requires either a telescope with a long focal-length, or that shorter combined with 2x and even 3x barlows(or comfortable, somewhat costly eyepieces of very short focal-lengths). In addition, the collimation of the Newtonian must be spot-on for sharp images at the higher powers, the powers necessary to bring the planets closer. Both a 130mm f/5 and 150mm f/5 Newtonian are quite versatile, and for observing most everything in the sky, from a low 20x to 200x and beyond.

You have a choice to begin with either a refractor(achromat), or a reflector(Newtonian). Reflectors require collimation, alignment of the two mirrors within, on occasion. Refractors, generally, do not require such maintenance, as the design is simpler and tighter in construction. A refractor is usually a bit more costly, as lenses are more difficult to manufacture than mirrors. Refractors(achromats) will show false-colour to varying degrees whilst viewing brighter objects. The shorter the achromat, the worse the false-colour. Reflectors are false-colour free. For the same outlay of funds, a reflector will usually have the larger aperture. This is a shorter refractor... https://kwtelescope.com/starpro-az-90mm-refractor/ This, a longer refractor... https://kwtelescope.com/polaris-90mm-german-equatorial-refractor/ For either of those, a star-diagonal may be desired for the sky at night... https://kwtelescope.com/1-25-star-diagonal/ This is a shorter reflector... https://kwtelescope.com/polaris-130mm-german-equatorial-reflector/ This is a compact, collapsible, shorter reflector... https://www.all-startelescope.com/sales/product_info.php?cPath=21_112&products_id=624 This, a longer reflector... https://kwtelescope.com/polaris-114mm-german-equatorial-reflector/ This, a longer Newtonian-Dobson... https://kwtelescope.com/classic-150p-dobsonian/ What is your budget?

Vixen produces a 90mm pair, and a 115mm pair. I have the latter for my refractor. Vixen does not offer customisations; never have in fact. The Sky-Watcher rings would work as well, with slightly thicker felt. You can use carpet-tape to secure non-adhesive felt within the rings... Before, and after... ...and that for a 50mm f/12 achromat from 1969. I used pipe-clamps of iron for that one. I'm able to use it now, albeit a bit on the dim side, although I have seen one of the dimmer globular-clusters through it; and stars within its mass, with averted-vision. My Takahashi is a porker, weighing in at about twice as much as the DC. John's DL comes closer to weight of my own, but not quite. Mine is about four pounds heavier than that. The DZ likely weighs the same as the DL. The finish of tube-rings, or a cradle, is a personal preference, as are the colours of same. Those Vixen rings of my own originally came from a 102mm Vixen achromat... I took one look through that achromat, then decided I didn't want an achromat for my definitive 4" refractor. I returned it and got the FS-102 instead. But I kept the Vixen rings and bar. True the Vixen-green is not quite as lovely as the Takahashi-green... ...but they're just rings, and they work.

Oh, for the long run, you might want to consider the DZ instead... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-fc-100-series-refractor-telescopes/tak_tfk10310.html

Yes, of course it can, and simply by purchasing a pair of tube-rings and a dove-tail bar. This is my own Takahashi refractor, an FS-102, and attached to an EQ3-class equatorial. The rings and bar were made by Vixen. It's a snug fit, but they work... The outer diameter of the FC-100DC's optical-tube is 95mm. A 200mm-long Vixen-type dovetail-bar should serve. The rings are attached to the bar with stainless-steel machine-screws(or bolts). These 101mm rings should fit, but if they're slightly too loose, you can remove the thin felt and replace it with that somewhat thicker, and self-adhesive... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/tube-rings/skywatcher-telescope-tube-rings.html The rings are white, apparently, which would match the tube of the telescope; yes, quite. Black rings would look nice, too. You can also consider the Takahashi tube-cradle for it, if you haven't already. It should be possible to attach it to a dovetail-bar... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/takahashi-cradles/takahashi-tka21420-tube-cradle-for-fs-78sky-90fsq-85edx.html I believe that that one will fit the FC-100DC, but you will need to confirm all of that with FLO. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dovetails-saddles-clamps/astro-essentials-dovetail-bars.html (the 21cm)

The Bresser 102/1000 refractor(achromat) would be best for visual-use; not ideal for astro-photography. The Orion "StarSeeker IV" 130/650 Newtonian is not fully collimatable, but might do in a pinch for astro-photography. If you're in the U.S., you can try this OTA... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/468744-USA/Vixen_Optics_2604_R130Sf_5_1_130mm_Reflector_Telescope.html/overview The Vixen is collimatable, but it has a plastic 1.25" focusser, and rubber-grommets for the primary-cell. Both can be upgraded, the cell most easily, and with metal springs. Then, you choose the go-to mount. However, this is the ideal 130/650; a proper, collimatable instrument... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130p-ds-ota.html ...and configured for astro-photography, as well as for visual-use.

I have received individual parts for my focussers from the manufacturers, but under warranty, yet with myself to blame; no defects in either case. Am I to understand that Celestron International will not sell you the individual part(s) you need; only the entire focusser, and for £40?