Alan64

Many have difficulty with the 5x24 finder-scope that comes with the kit... That's my own before I unwrapped it. Many have had the problem of not being able to align it well. The solution for making it easy to align, and to hold its alignment afterwards, is simply by shimming the holder of the scope's stalk... I used a bit of self-adhesive flocking, wrapped once round. Thin, self-adhesive felt can be used, or even masking-type tape in a pinch. You want the scope to fit into the holder neither loosely nor too tightly, just right rather, snugly. You can then adjust the screws at the rear and align it most easily. It's actually not a bad little finder, not at all. I took it out during the day and was amazed at the quality and speciousness of the view, albeit at 24mm.

The only other eyepiece that comes with your kit is this 4mm... ...and for a power of 250x with the telescope. A bit high there, yes, but I treasure my own, and far over the 20mm erect-image. This is an afocal-shot I took through that 4mm, with my PS1000, and by holding a small point-and-shoot camera up to the eyepiece and snapping the shot, on the fly... Now, it's slightly blurred there, as the mount I was using was a bit shaky, similar to the CG-2 mount that comes with the kit, but I did set my camera's shutter to 1/45th of a second to compensate. I then had to brighten the image to match what I had seen during the live view. During the live view, with my right eye only, the view was nigh tack-sharp. The view would be extremely narrow if you popped that 4mm in, but it would dim the Moon down considerably. If you might manage to see the Moon with it, and quite closely, that will tell you right there if your telescope needs collimating. The Moon is an awfully large object. It's not that difficult to zero in on it, even with that 4mm.

The 20mm eyepiece that comes with the kit... The eyepiece is notorious for coming apart, either by accident, or intentionally; and all that that entails. The eyepiece contains an Amici, erecting-image prism-assembly, and for daytime/terrestrial observations... The view through it is quite narrow, the field-of-view akin to that of a 12mm, at least. The eyepiece can be converted into a conventional 20mm, but we won't go into that. Given the telescope's 1000mm focal-length, I would strongly suggest getting a 1.25" 32mm Plossl within this listing straight away... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-eyepieces/skywatcher-sp-plossl-eyepieces.html (31x) It would make for a wonderful investment, also for any and all telescopes that may be acquired in future.

The one you have now, its modern equivalent, is this Celestron... https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/celestron-powerseeker-114.html#SID=41 Truth be told, given the telescope's length, it would perform best upon an EQ3-class mount. Indeed, it's a bit too large even for this EQ-2... The tube of this 130mm f/5 is shorter -- easier to manage, store, and with which to travel -- yet it would require 2x and 3x barlows to enable the higher and highest powers of which the aperture is capable... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130p.html With its 650mm focal-length, it's ideal for low-to-medium powers, rather. Still, with barlows, it would make for an ideal all-rounder, and in observing practically everything in the sky; large and small objects, low and high powers. In that you have posited the question, brace yourself for a cacophany of suggestions, for a 6" f/8 Newtonian-Dobson, or even a 200mm f/6. You also have the option for a mount only, and for the OTA that you have now. But I cannot ignore that one of the best solutions for a 114mm f/8 Newtonian is a Dobson alt-azimuth... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SAnFX8IKPY Indeed, you then have yet another option, and in making a Dobson mount for your OTA.

The only real difference I see between the old motor-drive and the new one is that the casing of the old one is round, and that of the new one squarish. But there is the question of the timing in relation to the diameter, and the number of teeth, of the RA-gear of your mount, compared to the gear of a current Sky-Watcher EQ-1.

My own arrived mis-collimated. If it is mis-collimated, you can try the no-tools method... https://garyseronik.com/no-tools-telescope-collimation/ After having read that, if you'd rather use a Cheshire and a collimation-cap instead, indoors as I do, then the primary-mirror will need a center-spot... https://garyseronik.com/centre-dotting-your-scopes-primary-mirror/ The primary-mirror is easily removed. Take your time and be careful...

Yes, indeed, and it must be removed in order to collimate the telescope, if the telescope arrived mis-collimated. After the telescope is collimated, the lens within its cell is reinstalled.

Ah, here's your mount, theirs actually, and with the correct, original motor-drive attached... https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/180176-inherited-a-meade/?do=findComment&comment=1863297 Here's another view of the drive attached... https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images2/360/0615/22/meade-telescope-model-114-900-eq1_360_1d33cab08c6d4a36b80e4e236ffe22ee.jpg ...but I can't fathom even the vaguest guess as to its model number, unless it's merrily mentioned within your hard copy of the manual. <interim> I just got back from sailing the seven seas, online, and this is the closest match I can find... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/all-mounts-motors/skywatcher-ra-motor-drive-for-eq2.html ...if you want to make use of the small wheel and clutch. It bears a very close resemblance to that original Meade drive. Here's the manual for the motor-drive. It's branded "Orion" but it's the exact, same one as the Sky-Watcher. Skip to the third section... Orion-Sky Watcher EQ-1 EQ-2 motor drive.pdf Now, the original drive attached to the stud located on the side of the RA-axis' body of the EQ-1B, shown here arrowed in yellow... ...but the modern placement, on today's EQ-2 mounts with the small wheel and clutch, is shown there arrowed in red. It might make a difference in so far as to the success in fitting it to your mount; or, not at all. That would be for you to decide, of course. It would be a gamble, and to the tune of £64. Incidentally, here is Teleskop Services' listing of the drive, yet it states it's for an EQ-1... https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p397_Skywatcher-Quartz-controlled-single-axis-tracking-motor-for-EQ-1.html ...in other words, either/or.

A new one exists, but at the moment I can't think of where I had seen it, and some months ago. It's a bit more costly than the following... This is the side view of my EQ-1. The modern, 9V-battery motor-drive, of which I have one, its bracket attaches here... That's the side opposite of the small wheel and clutch found on your own. The drive-kit also came with a bracket for an EQ-2 which differs from the other somewhat. My EQ-2 comes with that small wheel and clutch... ...but the modern 9V motor-drive attaches here on the other side... Perhaps that might help in determining a solution. There is one thing however: the RA-axis and the RA-axis' worm-assembly must motion and rotate butter-smooth and freely, with no binding or slop whatsoever. Else, the motor-drive and the gears within its gear-case can be damaged. In the end, without the telescope and the counterweight attached, you must be able to twist the worm-shaft with your fingers, and with relative ease...

Now, I have a current Meade 114mm f/8 kit, but it came with an EQ-2 mount... That's the way they appear nowadays. The telescope is first-rate, and just as your own I'm sure. Back in the early 1990s, here in the U.S., Meade and its vendors offered the Meade 4500, which also came with an EQ2-class mount... That mount, I feel, is a bit more robust over my modern one, and to where I wish I had that one instead; oh well, lost in time it is.

This is the type of grease that is applied to these mounts, at the factories there in China... That's from my EQ-3 mount. I call it "glue-grease", as it's rather thick, and may become even thicker as it ages; clumpy and all. This is Super Lube applied onto a part from my EQ-2... Note how it glistens. It's applied sparingly, not ladled on like that within the first image. I use a small hog's-hair brush to apply it. A small, inexpensive tube of Super Lube would last, I dare say, forever and a day.

Hi! Welcome! I have the same telescope, the same kit... The telescope is known, colloquially, as a "Bird Jones" reflector. Quite a few of them arrive mis-collimated. It sounds to me that the telescope needs to be collimated. Start here at post #30, then 31 and 32, and give it a go... https://theskysearchers.com/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=5754&start=20#p49883

One more thing, the mount has been around the block, so to speak. You might want to freshen it up a bit... https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/331121-the-exquisite-and-venerable-eq-1/ Simply glean from that what you will, and in enabling the mount to perform at its very best. EDIT: I got to looking at the image of your mount-head, and actually it appears new, unused. Still, the lubricant applied to the parts at the factory may have solidified somewhat. If you have problems with stiffness and binding during the motions of the various components, then you might want to take the head apart, clean, and re-grease with a quality grease. I use Super Lube for my mounts.

That kit, I believe, was sold there in the UK. This is the manual for the "Jupiter"; the same telescope(in black) and mount(EQ-1B)... Meade 114-900 EQ-1 Jupiter.pdf That kit was sold in the U.S., and both kits around the year 2000 or so. I have an EQ-1 as well, along with an EQ-2 and an EQ-3. With the EQ-1, you can throw the RA-axis back, to 90°, until its butt rests upon the latitude bolt, shown there at left... ...then to secure the position with the clamp on the side of the mount. There is what is now your alt-azimuth mount. You would use the counterweight still, to balance, and the slow-motion controls will function in that alt-azimuthal mode as well. It's not permanent, as you can switch back and forth between the modes most easily. If you'd like a dedicated alt-azimuth... https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/explore-scientific-twilight-i.html#SID=568 If you'd prefer an equatorial... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-deluxe.html In that, I did not suggest an EQ-3, for the best EQ-3 is an EQ-5.

Instead of a Moon filter, I would recommend a variable-polariser which allows you to adjust the brightness to the level preferred. The telescope has a focal-length of 650mm. Planets start to become interesting at around 150x... 650mm ÷ 150x = a 4.3mm eyepiece I would suggest a 3x-barlow, along with 12mm(54x) and 9mm(72x) eyepieces, and for simulated 3mm(217x) and 4mm(163x) eyepieces when combined with the barlow. If we knew your location, we could make better recommendations for a barlow.

In order to help you, we'll need to know the brand and model of your refractor. That is found on the spec-label adhered to your telescope's tube or focusser, like this... An image of the refractor would also help tremendously. In the meantime, whilst we wait for your reply, here is an image of one of the focussers from one of my refractors, and it's a small refractor, too, but quite long in length... You may need to remove the focusser from the telescope's tube, and to inspect and repair it properly. It's usually only three screws that hold the focusser onto the tube. Here's what a focusser looks like on the inside... It would help to remove the old grease, depending on its age, and apply fresh grease onto the rack of the drawtube, shown at far-right, and onto the pinion-gear of the knob-assembly which meshes with the rack, shown at far-left.

I'm seeing the Cassini Division within that video from the Philippines; fancy that. That alone may be justification for doubting its authenticity. Add to that the use of a 3mm Plossl, which I've never known to exist, only a 4mm. EDIT: Ah, in the comments below I see that the author stated that they used a Datyson 4mm, but that's not a Plossl. Still, that's an awfully sharp image, and with a resolution usually had with larger apertures. 2nd Edit: A Datyson 4mm Plossl does exist after all.

Which focal-lengths did you get? Did you get a 32mm?

Have you taken images with the DSLR and the 80/900 achromat? If so, you can certainly upgrade from that; for example... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/astro-fi-series-telescopes/celestron-astro-fi-125mm-5-inch-schmidt-cassegrain-sct.html But that one is over budget. You want a telescope with a focal-length as close to 900mm as possible, but that's not per your present kit. The 5" Schmidt has a focal-length of 1250mm, which is a bit much, but shorter than a 102mm(4") Maksutov even; for examples... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/astro-fi-series-telescopes/celestron-astro-fi-102mm-maksutov-cassegrain.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az-gti-wifi/sky-watcher-skymax-102-az-gti.html With a 130mm f/5 Newtonian, you might need a 3x and perhaps even a 5x barlow. You would attach the camera to a barlow, for the planets and other smaller objects. The Schmidt and Maksutov might make use of a 2x, if that, depending on the object desired.

It's a bane of my existence as well, although the eye and brain are able to compensate. However, I do like to take afocal-shots now and again, through the eyepieces, on the fly. I just got a new camera; a bit better than the point-and-shoots that I've had in the past, but not quite a DSLR. It has a larger sensor, manual shutter settings, and an ISO up to 6400, which should help immensely with the shakes, although I haven't tried it out yet. This 114/900 could definitely use an EQ3-class... I've had it on this larger alt-azimuth, which is better... That's not to say that I've used that particular telescope regularly; only once. It simulates my 102mm f/8 refractor, which I don't use often, either. I prefer longer focal-lengths, but in shorter tubes, yet with the secondary-obstructions kept to a minimum. The 127mm/1000(my "C5") and 127mm/1900 Maksutov are my telescopes of choice nowadays. Then, another short-tube, a 100/400 Newtonian, is slated for experimentation once it's completed. I will be expecting it, albeit hopefully, to reach 200x, and with little image-breakdown. I'm not expecting a miracle, but I do want to be pleasantly surprised. Whether that happens or not is up to the astronomy-gods.

A 130mm f/5 on an EQ-2 is not that bad, not at all. Rather, this is worse, a 127/1000 on an EQ-1... Although, if wanting to image with your kit, an EQ-3 would be better. I have an EQ-2 for that 127mm, and a couple of alt-azimuths. The EQ-1 will not be used with it, but for my smaller telescopes instead.

Yes, it's cost-cutting, too, I expect. This one is lighter as well, and by "virtue" of its fixed-primary and plastic construction in general; beginning at 7:10... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhhs65AWdCk The author does do their level-best to convince otherwise. Now, if you were to place a conventional 150P, fully-collimatable, onto that mount, I might just hear the motors whine and the gears crack asunder.

My 100mm f/4, same as the "Heritage" 100P, arrived with its collimation nigh spot-on... It, too, has a fixed primary-mirror. Truth be told, the primary-mirror assembly of the "Heritage" 90mm Maksutov cannot be adjusted, either, and therefore cannot be collimated at all, as a whole, it would seem. Of course, this is all done to keep the weight down, particularly when combined with the smaller Synta go-to alt-azimuth mounts, so as not to strain the motors and gearing.

Actually. given the secondary-obstruction of the Maksutov, it would simulate, rather, an 80mm f/16 achromatic-refractor. There's a Celestron C90 in the household, not my own, but I'm the only one who has used it at night, and once only... The Moon was gorgeous. Maksutovs are the only reflectors that have been described as being refractor-like in performance. The telescope was designed and developed by Dmitry Maksutov, and for schools, for durability. The 114mm Newtonian of the other kit, at f/4.4, would be difficult to collimate, if required. At f/4.4, it is best suited as an astrograph, with a camera, rather than a visual instrument. However, for visual use, for low to low-medium powers, it would perform well, but only because a telescope doesn't have to work hard at the lower powers to produce a satisfactory image. When someone acquires a telescope, it is already in their mind that a telescope is for seeing faraway objects up close, what a telescope is for in the first place, and that will be far easier to accomplish with a Maksutov. Then, the OP does have the option of swapping the Maksutov out with this, when desired... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/heritage/skywatcher-heritage-100p-tabletop-dobsonian.html ...and for the low-power, wide-field views on occasion; which can also be had with one's eyes, or a pair of binoculars.

If I understand correctly, then the photographic speed has nothing to do with focal-length, but rather the focal-ratio? In any event, when dealing with a telescope only, no photography, we should instead refer to the focal-lengths only as "short" and "long"; likewise to the focal-ratios, instead of "fast" and "slow". Although, we are in the bad habit of describing telescopes solely for visual-use as being "fast" or "slow", up to a certain aperture, say, less than that of 300mm.