Choosing my First Telescope

[casaerwin]

I think one of the main considerations in choosing a first scope is just how portable it needs to be, and for some reason WEIGHT does not seem to be part of the specifications on very many telescopes.  I've been looking at the Celestron Power Seeker 114EQ, but have not been able to determine how much it weighs.

I live in Peru and shipping is prohibitive (about 3 times the cost of the scope) so I would like to know if I could fit this scope inside a suitcase and bring it back with me on the plane when I visit.

Another question I have about this scope is concerning its focal length of 900mm.  The specifications say the OTA is 864mm long, and since the distance from the secondary mirror to the eyepiece would be close to half the diameter of the aperture (114mm/2=57mm) I assume the 900mm focal length is not achieved by any type of "built-in-barlow".  That is the main reason I have for liking it more than the 127EQ.  The 127EQ has 1000mm focal length but the OTA is only 509mm long.  So I'm wondering if my reasoning is valid for choosing 13mm less aperture.

[Linda]

Hi.

Indeed, you don't want to buy a scope with built in Barlow, because they are difficult to collimate. Looking at the length of the 2 telescopes, I think your conclusion is correct. The Powerseeker 114EQ looks like it doesn't have a built-in Barlow and the Powerseeker 127EQ looks like it does.

About the 114EQ: This telescope is too long to take on a plane as hand luggage, especially the mount. But as room luggage it should be no problem, if you pack it carefully. I can't find any weight information on this scope either. But for comparison I have an Skywatcher EQ3 mount which is much heavier than this one, that weighs about 5 kg. My guess is that this scope weighs somewhere around 3,5 kg. If you manage to pack them together into 1 box (or tape the 2 boxes together), it should easily fit into the weight limit of 1 piece of room luggage. I am planning to buy a EQ5 and take it as room luggage on a plane.

I am a little worried about the combination of the scope and mount and how stable it is, especially for a long scope like the 114EQ. You should preferably test this before you buy it.

As an alternative, have you looked at the second hand market in your country?

There is also another scope, the Skywatcher Heritage, available in a 130mm version, that would fit onto a plane. This scope is considered by experienced people to be pretty decent. http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p2705_Skywatcher-Heritage-130P-FlexTube-Dobson---6years--.html

[Linda]

I am reading your post a bit better now. If it should actually fit inside a suitcase, you should rather be thinking about a short refractor or a small Maksutov. Or still that Skywatcher Heritage in perhaps a smaller size, because that one includes mount. Any refractor or Maksutov will need an additional mount and the usual EQ and AZ mounts are too long to fit into a suitcase. In that case, you should rather improvise with using a photo tripod, a Giro mini head and a small refractor or Maksutov on it, or something similar.

[Cosmic Geoff]

Celestron Nexstar 127 SLT Computerized telescope (Maksutov) Gross package weight 13.8Kg, net weight 8.8 Kg, OTA weight 4Kg, box 100x48x28cm.

Skywatcher Startravel 102mm f5 OTA weight 3kg, box70x21x24cm, gross weight 4kg.

That should give you a benchmark for transporting a scope as hold or cabin luggage.

[Putaendo Patrick]

Equatorial mounts generally have quite heavy counter-weights. I'm wondering if there would be any weight/cost advantage in leaving these in the US and whether it would be possible to replace them with weight-lifters' weights in Peru. This is more of a question than a suggestion as I don't know if this is even possible!