Celestron Astromaster 114EQ - Trigger's Broom?

[frugal]

Last Christmas my parents very generously bought my daughter an Astromaster 114EQ as her present. Despite the generally foul weather this year we have been able to use it a fair few times to look at the moon and occasionally Jupiter. She really enjoys seeing things through the scope. The EQ mount makes it really easy for her to track something once we get it into view.

As with all good kids presents, I want to have a go with it and I have been experimenting with connecting the DSLR up to it (with occasional successful shots of the moon). The other day I was putting it back in the storeroom where it lives and one of the limbs of the spider at the top of the tripod just snapped in two when I was setting the legs up again.

So I was thinking, shall I replace the plastic spider? Or is that just throwing money away and I should just replace the whole mount? If I continue with the supplied mount, should I get the Celestron motor drive for it? I know that I am never going to be taking high quality shots of deeps space objects, but some of the more obvious nebula would be nice. Is the tracking on the motor good enough for the tube? or is it just a waste of money.

The comments about the motor drive for the supplied mount seems to be summed up as: Gets in the way a lot and not good enough to actually track anything. However all of the threads about any kind of astro-photography suggest that you need to be spending £600+ on something like a HEQ5 mount in order to be able to actually use a DSLR and track anything other than the moon

Spending over 600 quid on a mount for a telescope that only cost £130 for the whole set up seems to be gilding the lily somewhat. Even if I do spend that amount on the mount, am I going to be able to see anything with the scope itself? or am I going to need to spend another £4-500 on a new tube as well?

So is this only a decent setup once I have replaced the mount, and the tube and probably the lenses?..

[John]

Hello and welcome to the forum 

If you would be content at just replacing the broken item, this eBay seller might able to help:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/Telescopes-Binoculars-/28179/m.html?item=200907999142&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item2ec70cc7a6&_ssn=lotnabox

I've no connection with the seller I hasten to add, I've just noticed that they are selling parts for the Astromaster scopes.

[frugal]

Eeep! £50 for the plastic spider part! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REPLACEMENT-Celestron-Astromaster-114-Tripod-Bracket-/200692755520?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item2eba386c40

I can replace the whole tripod for £60 from FLO... I may have to resort to plan B: Arraldite and Gaffer tape

[ronin]

A lot depends on how far you want to go into this, and imaging can be costly.

For the scope you have at present then going past an EQ3 mount is likely not worthwhile, these are £175 from FLO. The EQ5 is £238. Neither have motors and these would add £80-100 to the cost.

Alternative is the used market, UK Astro buy and Sell being the obvious, just searched and very few EQ3's present but there is one: EQ3Mount. Worth looking at as these appear when people either pack in or upgrade, the upgrade is often to add motors but they add to a bigger mount.

You could get that then add motors, motors do not often appear on the used market.

As said the problem is if you want to go further as then you will want a bigger mount and scope.

Next scope up would be the 130pds, which would go on the EQ3 but the combination may not be brilliant for imaging. Next scope up is the 150P and for that I really think the EQ5 mount needs to be used.

I have ignored refractors as the scope since the start for them is something like the WO 71 which is around the £400 mark, and again the EQ5 is a better mount, although you may get something out of the EQ3 and WO71. So if that was chosen it would be for a future change.

[frugal]

Ronin, 

Thanks for the clarification. So when I keep seeing statements like "a HEQ5 mount is the minimum you need for imaging", it assumes you have a larger scope than I currently do.

So my options are: 

1 - Fix the current tripod and keep experimenting with what I have and just stick to the moon and visual observing

2 - Fix the current tripod, spend £60 on the motor and hope it works out.

3 - spend £250-£350 on a better mount, and then if I really get into it replace the mount again.

4 - Spend £650 on a mount that will likely keep me going for many years.

[John]

Imaging is where you are using CCD's / DSLR's to take pictures through the scope. That process requires more precision and steadiness than viewing through one so the mounts need to be that much more heavy duty and these tend to be more expensive too.

For viewing though a scope like your daughters a mount like an EQ2 or a simple undriven alt-azimuth mount such as the AZ-3 will do the trick and these cost a lot less than an HEQ5. Of course if you decide to go for a larger scope in due course having a more sturdy mount would give you a degree of "future proofing" but a mount such as an HEQ5 is a pretty massive affair and will seriously hamper the portability of your daughters scope.

Lots to think about !

[Guy Wells]

I have a similar scope. I have never made it track for any useful period of time. Having said that, I still connect my DSLR to it an image the main planets, moon and sun.

[rowan46]

Ronin, 

Thanks for the clarification. So when I keep seeing statements like "a HEQ5 mount is the minimum you need for imaging", it assumes you have a larger scope than I currently do.

So my options are: 

1 - Fix the current tripod and keep experimenting with what I have and just stick to the moon and visual observing

2 - Fix the current tripod, spend £60 on the motor and hope it works out.

3 - spend £250-£350 on a better mount, and then if I really get into it replace the mount again.

4 - Spend £650 on a mount that will likely keep me going for many years.

No it means that a heq5 is the minimum mount  to produce quality pictures at a repeatable level. I have seen some decent pics taken with suboptimal equipment but generally these people  move up to the heq5 or eq6 as they tire of losing so many subs if they are lucky they get to keep half of what they take.

If you want to do astrophotography its all about the mount. that is undisputed. What is also undisputed is that the heq5 synscan is the cheapest mount that will provide quality, repeatability and ease of use. it can be done on an eq5 or a cg5gt but not easily and not reliably. if you go down the eq5 route I would suggest getting rid of the astromaster ota and getting this instead

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130p-ds-ota.html

along with the coma corrector for it

[frugal]

Regardless of what I am going to do, step 0 had to be to make the current tripod safe. I took the arm to pieces in order to see how badly it was broken, decided that althouh it was a clean snap, it was never going to hold just with gluing. Then I realised that the arm is just a straight section. As my other hobby is woodwork (why can't I find a cheap hobby), 15 minutes and a scrap of oak later I have a new arm that will probably out last the rest of the stand

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk

[John]

Neat job 

[rowan46]

Nice job, you should have replaced the other 2 bits too it looks nicer

[Astro Imp]

Problem solved, rather elegantly too, well done.

[nicks90]

at least it wasnt one of the plastic ears on the tube clamps that snapped - like mine...