Alan64

What sort of telescope do you have?

https://www.amazon.com/Meade-DS-114EC-60mm-Reflecting-Telescope/product-reviews/B00004SPCB

That kit has been round for many years, twenty or more.  Its rudimentary go-to system may work, or not.  Hopefully it may be used manually. 

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/295074/Meade-Ds-114.html

It appears to have a 2" focusser,  but I doubt if the secondary-mirror is sized for it, to fully illuminate a 2" eyepiece.

You don't want the union too tight, nor too loose, just right rather.

In the end, what is needed are purchasers and testers of these latest models.

The Sky-Watcher 130(not the 130P) has a sphere at f/7, and has been sold for years, if not decades.  If it must come to that, then a 102mm at f/6.3 is acceptable.

I had first seen that one, from Orion of California, some time ago, its debut having been in June of this year.  I was somewhat astounded, a sphere at f/6.3, and intensely curious.  In the end, it's simply a sign of these leaner, meaner times in which we live.  It appears that parabolas are to become ever so precious.  Orion indicates a maximum power of 204x for its 102mm kit, 50x per inch, and I would certainly hold them to it, not only when observing the Moon.

49 minutes ago, Second Time Around said:

FLO says both their Ursa Major ones are parabolic.

Yes, I know.  Still, we have a mystery on our hands.

Alas, I wish the primary mirrors were parabolic...

https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-SkyScanner-BL102mm-TableTop-Reflector-Telescope/rc/2160/p/134763.uts

On 16/12/2022 at 14:14, Deason said:

Hi All,

I have just bought a used one of these as a beginner.

I've got the DSLR mount which I've used and I'm struggling with it staying still when trying to photograph planets. I focus on Jupiter and it moves out of view. The screws are extremely tight.

I've noticed on the stand the thing wobbles and I am wondering if its me or a dodgy stand.

Any help would be appreciated.

You have this kit...

https://www.celestron.com/products/astromaster-114eq-telescope

The mount is an EQ-1, the smallest and least supportive equatorial mount on the planet.  The mount is only for the smallest of telescopes, like this Celestron C90 Maksutov...

Since round 2000, the manufacturers have combined telescopes that are too large with mounts that are too small, to attract the eye in the case of the "AstroMaster" series, in anodised orange and excessive plastic trimmings.

The telescope that you have there is not a Newtonian, oh no.  It is a catadioptric-reflector rather, just like my Celestron "PowerSeeker" 127mm...

My EQ-1 mount came with that telescope, but I do not use that wee mount with that large of a telescope, nor is your "AstroMaster" EQ-1 suitable for the 114mm catadioptric-reflector; just adequate for visual, but not at all for astro-photography.  But cheer up, as you may certainly take photographs with the telescope itself.  You will need at least an EQ3-class mount, like the EQ3-2, if not an EQ-5 which would be ideal, support-wise.

Both of our reflectors appear as Newtonians, but in the end they are not.  Colloquially, both are known as "Bird Jones" telescopes. A catadioptric-reflector, or "Bird Jones", utilises both lenses and mirrors within the optical-train of the telescope...

...the doublet-lens on the left, the spherical primary-mirror on the right.  The lens is placed here at the end of the draw-tube of the focusser...

The other end is where an eyepiece is inserted; note the thumb-screws.  The lens acts as a barlow, doubling the focal-length of the telescope.  It is also reputed to correct for spherical aberration, to correct the sphere itself.  My 127mm is at f/8, but its sphere is at a native f/4 or thereabouts.  Your 114mm is at f/8.8, and its sphere at f/4.4 or so.  Indeed, without the lens installed, both of our telescopes are as Newtonians, bad ones at that with their spheres, however they cannot function as classical Newtonians when lens-less. 

For best performance, collimating both requires removal of the lens-cell from the optical train...

After collimation, the lens-cell is re-installed.  Many take the lens out of its cell via its slotted retaining-ring.  That is incorrect.  Rather, the entire cell containing the lens is removed, as shown.  That way, the lens isn't soiled, nor flipped out of order.  The cell is removed with a tool via these two holes circled in yellow...

I made my own tool with oak and nails.  Again, do not remove the lens from its cell, ever; unless you'd like to blacken its edge round, to improve contrast and reduce light-scattering...

Hello, and welcome. 

Have you contacted Meade...

https://www.meade.com/

Then, Orion, of California, owns Meade now, and since June of 2021.

Do you have an image to share of the telescope's damage?

The AE 32mm Plossl appears identical to my GSO 32mm...

The discontinued "Revelation" Plossls were most likely made by GSO as well.

The AE 32mm Plossl(23x), or a 2" 32mm 70° eyepiece, would assist the finder in finding objects to observe, and allow for panoramic views of the night sky.

I have a 150mm f/5 Newtonian...

It's bright, in its own right, and versatile.

You can reduce and even eliminate diffraction effects with a variable-polariser...

The tripod/hub is obviously defective.  Let us know as to the outcome, good or bad.

Are you imaging with the telescope, or observing with eyepieces?  In any event...

11 hours ago, Asparagoose said:

Thanks Alan. I ended up ordering the AWB OneSky and will replace the dobsonian mount with a tripod. I realized the tube collapses to about the same size as the ST80, it’s obviously just a bit thicker, which won’t impact portability too much. 

Good, that.   Have you a suitable mount in mind?

I got this Meade S102, a 102mm f/5.9 achromat, last year...

It was a second, a return to a wholesale-club; the only issue, a small scratch on the OTA, and not all that noticeable...

I've used it once, during the day.  It makes for a great terrestrial spotter.

I removed the refractor from its old-fashioned, yoke-type mount.  The OTA had three mounting plates, two for the yoke, and one for the slow-motion control-rod.  All three were removed, the six threaded holes into the OTA filled with set-screws...

Tube-rings were very difficult to find.  I had to settle for these, although intended for 100mm refractors...

As of this posting, I'm waiting on a proper dovetail-bar for it.  Those are very difficult to source as well.  I will then turn the telescope towards the sky at night, before I blacken and flock the telescope throughout, also to render the draw-tube true, square and slop-free within its run.

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/314294-the-synta-wonky-plastic-focusser-fix/

...no slop, and butter-smooth.

I had ordered this 80mm f/6 fast-achromat from Canada several years ago, the Antares 805...

At f/6, it is 80mm longer than a ubiquitous ST80, which results in somewhat less false-colour, or chromatic-aberration, whilst viewing brighter, tighter objects in particular, planets and stars.

An afocal shot of the Moon, taken through the achromat...

You can see the royal-blue(reddish blue) edging round; that's false-colour.  However, that's the way the camera saw it.  It's less intense during a live view, when looking into the eyepiece with the eye, but you get the idea.  With the ST80, at f/5, the false-colour will be more pronounced, of course.  The longer the achromat, the less false-colour to be seen...

That is a 70mm achromat at f/13.

The ST80 has quite a following, but I view it as a secondary, specialty telescope; not as the primary instrument.

In the long run, the apochromatic AWB "OneSky", also at f/5, would be the better choice.

The mount is similar to this one...

https://explorescientificusa.com/collections/equatorial-alt-azimuth-mounts/products/exos-nano-mount-fl-exosnanot1-00

Although it's not quite up to an EQ3-2, or a CG-4.  A 130P-DS is heavier than a 130P, certainly than those offered on go-to mounts.

You don't want to extend the legs of the tripod, like this...

Leave them retracted instead...

The equatorial mount-head can be easily transformed into an alt-azimuth, and back again.

I think you made a very good if not an excellent choice, but that will depend upon how successful the collimation procedure goes; if urgent, as when wanting to see Saturn, up close, clear and sharp, at 200x and beyond.

The Cheshire you see online has cross-hairs, for centring the secondary-mirror directly underneath the draw-tube of the focusser...

You can simply determine the centring by eye instead...

Is that near enough?  Then to get the StellaLyra eyepiece.

Thank you.  I haven't had mine long.  I took an afocal shot of Mars through it one night...

17 hours ago, MichaelDiggs said:

Hello. I have always been interested what's above. Then as I grew older and opened my mind and realized I cannot comprehend the vastness of space/time I just have to take a step back, relax and enjoy what I can. When I try to think about a light year, black hole, gravity, and I really concentrate - I have to take a breath and slow down before my electric impulses overload.

 

I'd love to see what kind of hardware I need to set something up in my backyard and do some gazing. Love to start with checking out some constellations and our friendly moon of course. I do not know if people like me can have some great optics that will actually allow my eyes to see a galaxy or would I just be looking at light spots? Anyway, in no big rush but love to start with something easy to use, powerful and has the technology to get my eyes closer so I can enjoy this beautiful universe. Even if it's just a bleep on the timeline and doesn't register. Thanks everyone. Enjoy to checking back.

 

Michael

 

Hi Michael, and welcome.

Do you live under dark or bright skies at night, or somewhere in between?  In either event, a reflector would be a great way to start.

I have a 150mm f/5, just like your own, with a 1.25" as well...

If you're wanting to fit a 2" dual-speed, the existing secondary-mirror may not fully illuminate 2" eyepieces.  When going from a 1.25" focusser to a 2", it is assumed that 2" eyepieces will be used.  The secondary-mirror may need to be larger for that usage, hence, replaced in addition.  Of course, that can always be postponed, or omitted if using only 1.25" eyepieces with the micro-focus...

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000256486538.html?pdp_npi=2%40dis!USD!US %24119.19!%24113.23!!!!!%402103222516697607147454503ea13d!10000001045732238!btf&_t=pvid%3A91d01b78-d1cb-4bc0-a24b-e64ff8482d0d&afTraceInfo=4000256486538__pc__pcBridgePPC__xxxxxx__1669760715&spm=a2g0o.ppclist.product.mainProduct&gatewayAdapt=4itemAdapt

Hi,

I have the same telescope, a 76mm f/9.2 Newtonian.  It's most portable, and eyepiece-friendly...

It is very difficult to get spare draw-tubes here, too.  I've gotten one, but in having to buy a whole telescope, just for the focusser.  I bought another off of AliExpress, shipped from China.

That damage occurred when the focusser's knobs were cranked forward, inwardly, past the stop; unfortunate.  Here's hoping it's up and running soon.

On 25/11/2022 at 09:42, kelly324 said:

hi!

apologies if i’m in the wrong place, i’m relatively new to this site

im about to purchase a skywatcher explorer 130m and was wondering if anyone has this scope and would be willing to share some photos that they’ve been able to take with it?

my interest lies mostly with saturn and jupiter, but honestly i’d be happy to see anything and everything! i’d just like some pictures so i have an expectation in my head

i have tried youtube reviews etc but i couldn’t find any that showed off any astrophotography

thank you so much 

Hi!  

No, you're not in the wrong place at all, not at all; quite the opposite, actually.

If you are wanting to dabble in astro-photography, this kit would be better than the 130M...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130p.html

It's interesting that the more suitable kit for such, among the two, does not come with a motor-drive.

I have two telescopes, one most similar, the other as well in its way, when compared to the Sky-Watcher 130M...

I've taken a few afocal shots, through the telescope on the right.  That one is a 127mm f/8 catadioptric-reflector; short, yet long.  The 130M is a 130mm f/7, and long. The views through either one would be practically indistinguishable...

At 250x, through its 4mm-SR eyepiece...

The Moon was somewhat sharper, live.  Both of my own there have spherical primary-mirrors, just as the 130M.