Alan64

And now for the ugly side; the touch-ups for the optical-tube... Scratches... Filled finder-holes... Where the dovetail-bar was attached... Where the primary-cell mounts... The rattle-can paint isn't as black as the original... But under normal lighting, and certainly in the dark, they shan't be noticed. After all, this isn't an Aston-Martin.

The optical-tube has been, at long-last, completed... It will be a day from now however before the tube can be handled, and for the gloss-black paint to cure, but I do not have a pressing need to handle it. I may now tend to the focusser, finder-base, and dust-cap here on out.

Never again will I buy another less-than-$1 rattle-can of Wal-Mart's house-brand. I shook the very devil out of that can, and still the paint lacked enough pigment to brush on even five times to cover. So, I got a rattle-can of Rust-Oleum 2x "Ultra Cover" gloss-black, and to touch up the tube all over; filled holes, and scratches made by the tips of the bolts used to mount the tube-rings to the dovetail-bar. I need to grind those down a bit more. I had stupidly rotated the tube within the rings, whilst having forgotten about those bolt-tips needing more work. The first touch-ups have been applied. In about 30 minutes I'll need to apply a second and final coat, then the tube will be completed. You can see where one of the filled holes is... It looks as though there's a screw-head rising up off of the surface. I just want them sealed, along with those scratches. It shall be pretty enough in the end. Pretty is as pretty does.

I have the PS1000. Avoid it like the very plague. This rather... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html ...but not the 100P and at f/4. That one is configured as an astrograph, in disguise.

The Towa #305 is a 6" f/15 achromatic-refractor with an EQ-2 equatorial mount. These are the hits when I "Google" a Towa #1024... https://www.google.com/search?q=towa+model+%23+1024&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS778US778&oq=towa+model+%23+1024&aqs=chrome..69i57.7039j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Is that one a Newtonian, a reflector, which uses mirrors instead of a doublet-lens? Do you have a photograph of it to share, or the listing itself? Curiouser and curiouser... I have a Celestron "PowerSeeker" 127EQ... ...but I don't recommend them to beginners. For the record, I got mine on purpose, rather than by accident. I also have a 60mm f/15 achromat, just like the Towa #305, the telescope, but mounted on an AZ-1 alt-azimuth...

Methinks the Tasco reflector is formatted with a .965" focusser. It could be upgraded to a 1.25", and perhaps without having to get a somewhat larger secondary-mirror. Do you have a photograph of your present telescope to share with us? For example, this is one of my older telescopes on a wooden mount... ...and it uses the old-style, narrow-view .965" eyepieces.

"The many ways of collimating are as the number of stars in the sky." - Confucius

I've no idea as to the type of secondary-hub set-screws that came with your telescope. In any event, if you can't grab one with two fingers and twist and turn it, then they need to be replaced. These are the sets-screws, at right, that I replaced with the cap-bolts, at left... You want them to stick out far enough to grab a hold of them. You can get those cap-bolts either online or from your local hardware. The goal is to eliminate a tool between the screws and your fingers whilst adjusting them. The shorter the focal-ratio of a Newtonian, the more difficult it is to collimate it, and an f/4 is quite difficult, but not impossible. When working with the secondary, you have to show it who's boss, and with a gloved hand(so as not to get grease and oils on anything). Illuminate the tube with a diffused light-source... Back all three set-screws off and away from the mirror-and-stalk, and with your fingers. Whilst peering through the peep-hole of a Cheshire, you then grab and orient the secondary-mirror with the other hand until it appears as a nigh-perfect circle, and centred directly under the focusser... You than finger-tighten the set-screws to keep the mirror in that position. You do not torque them down at this point. You want those four "pie slices", as divided by the cross-hairs of the Cheshire, to be of the same size. Note the use of the orange construction-paper that I used to block the primary-mirror during that exercise. If the mirror is not centred under the focusser, and perfectly, such is accomplished by the larger screw, usually spring-loaded, there at the centre of the hub... It moves the mirror back and forth along the length of the telescope. The secondary-assembly is that one part of the telescope that gives the most fits. The mirror of same tilts and rotates in most every conceivable direction, but it must come to rest in only one position, and as shown. Once that's done, you then slightly loosen the secondary set-screws, then simultaneously tilt both mirrors, the primary-mirror with its adjustment-screws, towards one another, carefully and slowly, and until their centres line up... Note the lovely f/4 off-setting there in the centre, which is normal and occurs automatically during a collimation procedure. Off-settings are necessary for Newtonians of shorter focal-ratios. Fortunately, again, they occur automatically; although some do tweak that, so I've read. When the cross-hairs of the Cheshire(on the outside), and the mirror-image of the cross-hairs(centre), along with the primary-mirror's centre-spot, all line up together, as shown, you're golden. It is at that time that you batten down all of the adjustment-screws, of both mirrors, whilst keeping a sharp eye on that scene to ensure that nothing moves out of position when so doing. Here's the view of that same scene through the collimation-cap... You then take the telescope outdoors, and see glory, just as I have and do still with my own Newtonians. But then, for longer tubes, two people may be required to adjust both mirrors simultaneously, one stationed at the front of the telescope, and one at the back. There is also the option of one person going back and forth, and until the process is completed. As I understand, laser-collimators allegedly make that aspect easier. Therefore, if, in the end, and regrettably, you choose to stick with a laser, ensure that the laser is collimated beforehand.

Well, I just ordered that Barska 70/300 kaleidoscope a while ago. We'll see. If it doesn't pan out, I'll still be able to observe Sirius... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou_1Ijx0p50

I have a CG-2(EQ-1), as well as a larger Meade EQ-2, and what Meade calls their "Large Equatorial", but it's nothing of the sort. The EQ-1 is the smallest on the planet, and with the EQ-2 only the next size up. The largest is an EQ-8, and then there are the even larger ones within the professional observatories, staggeringly large. Your CG-3 is the same as my Meade, and an EQ-2 as well. I have a Celestron CG-4, which is an EQ-3; just a bit of rambling there. Pay me no mind. Yes, I have that same 9V-battery motor-drive, although I haven't used it yet; and yes, the Baader 32mm is among the choices at that focal-length. A while back I was wanting a 32mm myself, and had decided on the Baader, but I was swayed towards the Vixen 30mm. Quite recently, I just got another, and a 32mm this time, a GSO... This is the same eyepiece, there in the UK... https://www.365astronomy.com/32mm-GSO-Plossl-Eyepiece.html

I've never gone above a 12.5mm in an orthoscopic. I probably should've stopped at the 9mm even, but 12.5mm is closer to 9mm than an 18mm, so I went ahead and got it... To me, that's a well-rounded set of orthos, from 5mm to 12.5mm. Orthoscopics are best for critical high-power observations, and with the telescope on a motorised mount, so that the object doesn't drift out of sight. Orthoscopics have a narrow field-of-view, generally an AFOV of around 43°, and rather short eye-relief. If your CG-3 mount is not motorised, which it can be after adjusting/loosening it up(of the utmost importance), then you may wish to consider eyepieces at 60° AFOV and perhaps wider even. As you go up in power, the telescope, and the rest, has to work harder to produce sharp, pleasing views. That will require a spot-on collimation. I don't think that the primary-mirror of the "AstroMaster" 130/650 is centre-spotted. If not... https://garyseronik.com/centre-dotting-your-scopes-primary-mirror/ That will require removing the primary-cell from the back of the telescope's tube, then to use a Cheshire and/or a collimation-cap to align the optical-system. You may already know how to collimate a Newtonian, I do not know. For your lowest power, for the hunt, a 32mm Plossl serves best. The rather short focal-length of the telescope, at 650mm, will probably require another 3x-barlow, albeit one of better quality; that is if high-powered observations are to be regularly enjoyed.

That's quite a low-profile focusser as it came originally. If you're referring to those of the Chinese eBay listings, I've seen them. They appear to be viable, and of metal, but again it would need to be shortened somehow, rather drastically I'd say, and yet another DIY project if possible.

The inner surfaces of the ends of the tube were matte-blackened up to the edges of the strips of flocking... Now to prime and gloss-blacken all the rest where needed, including the primary-cell mounting-extensions, then the tube itself will be completed.

Yes, you'd be able to compare the two apertures, right-angled or no. I don't have a right-angle finder-scope myself, and I need one for my 127mm Maksutov. It's not much larger than your catadioptric, but it has a focal-length of 1900mm(!). I'm seriously looking to converting a short 70mm refractor, very short, into a finder-scope, as that Maksutov is going to need all the help it can get when perched upon my manual mounts.

The larger the tube, the greater the need for a plate. The plate also gives peace-of-mind, especially if the finder-scope is bumped hard and/or the user is indeed in the habit of using it as a handle. The latter can occur in an instant, without even thinking. Larger, fender-type washers on the inside, before the nuts, would also afford a bit of rigidity. The planets and other bright objects can certainly be found easily enough at 9x. A 9x50 is only good for deep-sky hunting due to the 50mm aperture; certainly not the 9x magnification. Of course, as the aperture increases, so the power; can't get past that. Although I do wonder why Synta is such a stickler for a 9x50 instead of an 8x50.

Bortle-5 is quite good. I'm under 4 to 5 myself. You can catch quite a few deep-sky objects with your telescope under those skies. I tried to find an 8x50 there in the UK. There are a few, but for a considerably-higher price, particularly compared to here in the U.S. where I'm located.

EDIT: That somewhat, but to a greater extent the bulk, and it is worth the addition if you feel you'd benefit from the larger finder-scope. With a 32mm Plossl, 31x is the lowest power you would have to assist the finder-scope in hunting for objects. 31x is not particularly low in power, but it is within the low-power range. So that's where the larger finder-scope would compensate. But then, the 6x30 is at a lower power, 6x. It just doesn't have a particularly large light-gathering aperture. There are those that prefer a 6x30 over a 8x or 9x 50mm, and for that lower, 6x power. But if you observe under considerable light-pollution, then the larger finder-scope would indeed be of greater benefit. I suspect that larger finder-scopes evolved as artificial-lighting increased, particularly near or within the cities of the world.

https://www.365astronomy.com/SkyWatcher-6x30-Right-Angled-Finderscope.html However, right-angle finder-scopes are more common and popular in the 50mm size... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/astro-essentials-9x50-right-angled-erecting-finderscope.html With your "Bird Jones" at a 1000mm focal-length, and just as my own, ours would benefit from a 50mm, whether an 8x50 or 9x50 RACI... Those are attached to my "Bird Jones" reflector within those images. This is my own... If collimated well, they are quite good for the medium-to-high powers, as befits a longer focal-length combined with a spherical primary. If you'd like to consider a 50mm RACI, the telescope's finder-base should be reinforced, if not already. I added a steel plate to my telescope, underneath the base on the inside of the tube... For a 6x30, such is not really necessary. Also, it could be that your finder-base is already reinforced, I do not know.

You don't want a 40mm, as the background sky surrounding an object would be greyer, washed-out. A 32mm is the standard for the lowest power, generally, and with many different sizes and types of telescopes. With that lowest power, aside from augmenting your finder in hunting for objects: the star-fields of the Milky Way, the Pleiades, and a bit beyond the core of the galaxy in Andromeda; the largest objects in the night sky. Incidentally, here are a couple of simulators... https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ https://www.stelvision.com/en/telescope-simulator/ My Orion "StarBlast 6" came with the same 25mm Plossl as your own, in addition to a 10mm... If that's the 25mm mentioned, it is a 52°, not a 60°. I have a few 25mm eyepieces, and that came with this telescope and that, but I never use them; too close to a 32mm. I prefer a 20mm as the next step down from a 32mm. This is a 20mm 68° that would work very well with your telescope, at f/8... https://agenaastro.com/gso-20mm-superview-eyepiece.html (60x) ...and one that I have here in the household. That's the nice thing about a longer focal-length telescope, as you don't have to break the bank in getting corrective, costly eyepieces for a good time at the helm.

Thank you Robert72. Oh, that's just a bit of comedy there.

The flocking of the optical-tube is completed, although I do need to matte-blacken just in front of the edges of the flocking at both ends of the tube all round... With the cowling and primary-cell attached, along with their mirrors... ...lovely, lovely, lovely. Note the light peeking through at the back.

One more to go... The last strip applied, and very last one that I'm about to install, each strip is in two pieces, as I'm using scraps to avoid having to cut into my main roll.

I'm taking into consideration that the OP is wanting to dabble in astrophotography, is all. The tube-rings of a Newtonian mounted upon an equatorial do allow for the rotation of same. In the case of a 200mm f/5 however, one would want to effect an easy modification so as to prevent the tube from slipping out of its rings whilst so doing... http://www.andysshotglass.com/wilcox_rotating_rings.html That would enhance visual use and afocal-photography(through an eyepiece).

The second section...<cough cough cough wheeze>...has been installed...

The first section of the flocking has been installed. This time round I wanted to straddle the tube's seam with a single piece...