Ricochet

If you have enough in focus I would try a Clicklock. I've not noticed any issues with tilt using mine, but I'm visual only so may not be quite so demanding on edge stars.

The second picture is the most correct set up, but why have you not pushed the barlow into the adaptor all the way to the shoulder? If the barlow won't push in any further then the focuser may not have enough in focus to accommodate the barlow being pulled out. In that case you would have to try the third picture and extending the focuser all the way out to see if you can focus, possibly pulling the barlow out a bit too. Also, you will probably find that the barlow will be operating at less than 2x in that configuration as the field lens of the Morpheus is in the 1.25" barrel and will be closer to the barlow lenses than designed.

You don't have to apply very much pressure at all to lock it, so perhaps you did over tighten it. However, if it has locked up already, you should contact Baader and they will replace it.

Since you installed the fine focus? Try (re)tightening the hex screws that hold the fine focuser to the shaft. Mine keep undoing slightly and then there's a bit of play that results in a loose-tight-loose sort of feel.

My 18mm does. It's right at the top of the barrel, but it is there.

If the Pentax SP WP is in budget at £169 can you stretch to £200 for a second hand Lunt (assuming it is still really available)? https://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=177330 I've got the 16x70 Helios Lightquest and based on those I'd buy the Lunts in a heartbeat if I was looking for a 10x50.

Mine are the same. Optically they are excellent eyepieces, but the mechanically they are awful. The sliding section doesn't lock, the rubber eyecup is uncomfortable, the undercuts catch on everything and are so deep that the collets on my cheap binoviewer can't even grip the eyepieces, and the choice of a painted metal as the exterior surface allows radiative cooling making the eye lens prone to dewing.

The disassembled eyepiece is not a 5 element SWAN, but a 4 element WA. Trying to match the WA lenses to the specification for the SWAN is what has lead to the misidentification of the number of lenses in the lower group. Your assessment of the SVBONY is pretty much what I expected having used a 15mm gold line, which from memory was only usable in the central 1/3 at f6.

An Astronomik CLS might show a tiny bit of improvement, any cheaper light pollution filters will definitely be a waste of money. If you can locate M13 as a faint patch of light then the best filter you can use from home is to increase the magnification, up to the point where the exit pupil is ~1mm. The best light pollution filter is to put your dob in the car and drive away from the light to a dark site, when/if possible. Edit: I should point out that the 1mm exit pupil limit advice is solely for open and globular clusters in which the stars can be resolved as points of light. For extended objects (eg galaxies) the limit is an exit pupil of ~2mm. For nebulae you can use UHC and OIII filters, which require even larger exit pupils and will probably only be of use on the brightest nebulae under your skies.

The main advantage of the collapsible dob is if you have a storage space in which the collapsible dob will fit but the solid tube won't. Similarly it may be possible that you have a vehicle into which you can fit the collapsed dob on its base rather than putting the OTA and base in separately. The advantage of the solid tube version is that it is actually lighter (and so easier to carry) than the collapsible version and will probably hold collimation better. Personally, at 10" I wouldn't even consider the collapsible version.

I would call the missing piece the eyepiece clamp. If the telescope is new I would return it for replacement, if it is second hand your best bet is probably to try contacting whoever you bought it from to see if they can find the missing piece. Unfortunately, I suspect buying a replacement will be very difficult unless you get lucky with someone selling off a damaged Astromaster for spares. Failing that, you might have to buy an entire focuser of approximately the same size as the one on the telescope and fit that.

The best thing to do while using an 8-10" dob is to observe whilst seated. I find that an adjustable drummers stool (the type that spin up and down) is the perfect height for observations at all altitudes. I'm 5'10" so you might find it a little bit more difficult if trying to observe something right down by the horizon but generally that isn't something you do as the atmosphere degrades the image significantly in that scenario.

I found that in my 8" f6 dob the maximum field of view from a 1.25" isn't quite wide enough so I think that rather than spending £70 on an eyepiece that turns out to be slightly too narrow, you should save up for a good eyepiece with a wider field. Personally, I would be looking for something at least as wide as a 28mm 68° eyepiece. If you're in no rush then taking your time also gives you the opportunity to see if anything suitable turns up on the second hand market, which could also help in terms of the budget.

It certainly is. The mount itself is really quite good so being able to put the mount on top of a tripod is an ideal upgrade.

Only the smaller 100p base has a thread for tripod mounting. Fitting the larger bases to a tripod requires some modification.

From previous posts the current telescope is a standard 76/700 reflector so there is definite merit in an upgrade. Given that you've mentioned both deep sky and planets I don't think you can go far wrong with the standard suggestion of an 8" f6 dobsonian, providing that you live in a house with a garden and can store it downstairs or in a shed or garage. If you will have to carry your telescope up/down stairs then something smaller is needed. In this case a 6" f5 Newtonian on an alt/az mount (carried in two parts) is probably the limit. You will also need to budget for additional eyepieces as the ones supplied with your existing scope aren't worth keeping.

I have one of these for my solar scope and wouldn't have considered it for a Heritage 150, I would have thought that it would be a bit too prone to vibration at high power. An AZ5 on the Horizon (assuming the head unscrews) would be my guess for the best reasonably priced option, or for £30 more the heavier but more stable AZ4/steel tripod package.

Brightness of a point source is related to aperture so the 8" should be brighter than the 6". Brightness of extended objects is related to the exit pupil so these should appear to be a touch brighter in the f5 scope than the f6. Additionally, the pds scopes have larger secondaries so that the fully illuminated field is larger. This could result in brighter off axis performance but secondaries are usually sized at the point where people won't notice the drop in brightness at the edge.

I've read somewhere that the optimum is actually 2.4mm but so long as you have something in the ball park you'll do fine. What you need to remember is that this is for observing unfiltered extended objects only. For anything using a filter you need to increase the exit pupil and for objects that resolve as point sources (open and globular star clusters) you can go down to about 1mm. Personally, I think it is much more important to choose your eyepieces based on exit pupil rather than magnification for DSO observation. Choosing steps based on doubling or halving the image brightness works very well. Choosing eyepiece focal lengths based on this is easily done by starting with an existing eyepiece and either multiplying or diving the focal length by 1.4. Using this method both your 13-8 and 8-5 jumps are too big. If I were in your position my choice would be to sell the 8 and 6.7 and replace them with 10 and 7mm XWs, if you are happy with the narrower field of view.

Providing that you have some sort of raised platform on which you could place the Heritage 130p, that is the one that I would choose. The Explorer 130 has no "p" designation, which suggests it has a spherical mirror and I would think that a parabolic f5 mirror would outperform a spherical f7 mirror. Additionally, the mini dob base supplied with the heritage is a good stable mount whilst the EQ2 is on the wobbly side. Given that the two most important things to look for in a telescope are probably a) optical quality and b) mount stability, the option that wins on both seems to be the sensible choice.

You don't "need" one, but you would very much want one as you will certainly get better star shapes in the outer field with one. With regards to collimation, there is only one way in which it could alter the ability for you to reach focus, and that is if you have significantly changed the distance between the primary and secondary mirrors. You could have done this by moving the secondary down towards the primary and/or moving the primary up towards the secondary. The first step of collimation is to centre the secondary mirror under the focuser. This must be done with a cheshire/sight tube or concenter, and cannot be done with a laser. As you have only mentioned using a laser the secondary could easily be in the wrong position. However, the most common cause of not being able to focus a telescope which has previously been focused with no issue is forgetting which combination of extension tubes are required to do so.

This isn't a good test as I believe with the 2" adaptor removed from the focuser the remaining hole is larger than 2" so even an oversized eyepiece barrel will still fit. Careful measurement of both the 2" adaptor and eyepiece barrel is probably the best way to determine which is at fault.

Can you post a picture of the damage here? Depending on how bad it is your best option might be to mask the damaged area rather than replace the mirror. With regards to a replacement have a look in the used telescope section on eBay. There was someone a while ago who was selling parts from telescopes individually, including astromasters, so perhaps there is one there. You could try contacting Celestron directly and see if they are able to supply a replacement, but I've not dealt with them to know how likely this option is. Generally speaking any 130mm f5 synta mirror should fit so perhaps you can find one in the second hand market, but I don't think it is very likely as one telescope tends to have one mirror and they don't usually get separated. Unfortunately, the cheapest option might be to buy an entire telescope.

The thread that I can see has links to the sponsor of this forum, FLO, which is a UK supplier who will deliver to Europe. Of the two barlows suggested in that thread one is a generic barlow sold under the astro essentials brand. If you search on eBay for a 2x barlow you will find many listings for the exact same barlow shipped directly from China to whichever country you live in. The second suggested barlow is sold by Baader. Searching for Baader products on the websites of more local European suppliers should allow you to find it. With regards to eyepieces it is possible that almost any eyepiece would be an improvement. The cheapest option would be a decent Plossl eyepiece, but at 10mm the eye relief will be getting a bit tight so the slightly more expensive generic eyepieces sold as "Planetary" eyepieces would be better. Beyond this, it depends how much you are willing/able to spend on an upgrade. My suggestions for an upgrade would be one of: 8/12mm BST Starguider (sold under different names outside of the UK) 10mm Baader Classic Ortho 9mm Vixen SLV 8.8mm Explore Scientific 82° 9mm Baader Morpheus Routinely changing the extension of the telescope during a session will become tiresome quite quickly. My choice would be to find a barlow that comes to focus without the need to change the extension of the telescope.

This will be your problem, they are quite different heights I think. You need to put the 2" extension in the focuser and then put the self centring adaptor into that. If you put the self centring adaptor straight into the slightly larger than 2" hole at the top of the draw tube your eyepiece will be too close to focus.