Total newbie here - need help with setup of telescope (Celestron 127EQ) that's missing some key parts

[RamJacCorp]

The telescope has no tripod or equatorial mount parts. I have the adjusting knobs, the counterweight, lenses, and the telescope. Celestron doesn't sell the parts I'm missing, and online, they're too pricey for my budget (almost as much as buying the whole kit new, after shipping costs).  I was hoping to rig something up so that I could mount it to my old Velbon camera tripod, but I have no idea if that's possible. Does anyone have any recommendations, tips, or tricks up their sleeve that could get this telescope up and running? Thanks in advance for any help! https://www.celestron.com/products/powerseeker-127eq-telescope

[michael8554]

If the telescope has the two rings that clamp around it, and the bar they attach to.

Then you should be able to attach the bar to the moveable head of the Velbon tripod.

But I don't believe that would be stable and safe enough.

I think realistically you need a new or used Equatorial or Alt/Alt mount and tripod.

Michael

[Cosmic Geoff]

The Powerseeker 127 does not have a good reputation, because of its 'Bird-Jones' optical design, which compromises optical performance in favour of compactness.  If you can't source a cheap used tripod & mount for it, it might be better to cut your losses and buy something else.

Astronomy is not a cheap hobby. 🙁

[Naughty Neal]

Have to  agree , the 127 is not worth spending money on . Any money allocated  is better spent on a better product.

[Mr_Cat]

I was given a powerseeker last weekend - my mate goes "you've got a telescope, here, have another"  Not sure I get the logic but I was too polite to say no...

As mentioned above it isn't a great telescope and the mount also isn't good (it looks like one of the slow motion controls on this needs re-seating / sorting).

But - if it is some use to you then you can have the mount for the cost of postage but keep in mind the above advice as even the postage won't be cheap...

[carastro]

I started out with this telescope (including the mount), and I recall having some good views with it, but the mount itself was a real PITA and the slow controls slipped so could never keep anything in the FOV (if I could find it in the first place).  I would say you could mount it on another mount, preferably a sturdy tracking Equatorial mount.   

Edited March 12 by carastro

[PeterStudz]

If I was in this position (In fact I’ve had a much larger reflector that came without a mount) I’d make a Dob base out of a bit of cheap plywood. Which is exactly what I did.

For this size of reflector a table top Dob base would the easiest. Really easy to make and you could knock one up over a weekend. There’s plenty of instructions/examples on the internet.  Although a cheap option it’s not difficult to end up with something far more stable and straightforward to use than many rather more expensive commercial alternatives.

But of course some people aren’t into DIY. 

[LondonNeil]

What does the ota weigh? If it's under 3kg with ep, I've a az3 mount and tripod that could suit and you could have for a few quid.  You'd need rings to attach the ota, that's all. However heavier tubes are just too much for the mount and it just sags/slips in altitude...  hence why I've upgraded. 

[PeterStudz]

32 minutes ago, LondonNeil said:

What does the ota weigh? If it's under 3kg with ep, I've a az3 mount and tripod that could suit and you could have for a few quid.  You'd need rings to attach the ota, that's all. However heavier tubes are just too much for the mount and it just sags/slips in altitude...  hence why I've upgraded. 

The AZ3 would be an upgrade compared to the EQ1 that the OP is missing. Well within the weight limit too. Although from what’s been said I’m not sure that they have the tube rings?

[Mr_Cat]

39 minutes ago, LondonNeil said:

What does the ota weigh? If it's under 3kg with ep, I've a az3 mount and tripod that could suit and you could have for a few quid.  You'd need rings to attach the ota, that's all. However heavier tubes are just too much for the mount and it just sags/slips in altitude...  hence why I've upgraded. 

I've just weighed mne - the OTA is 2.8Kg

4 minutes ago, PeterStudz said:

The AZ3 would be an upgrade compared to the EQ1 that the OP is missing. Well within the weight limit too. Although from what’s been said I’m not sure that they have the tube rings?

160mm rings - FlLO has them but £45 !!

[PeterStudz]

29 minutes ago, Mr_Cat said:

 

160mm rings - FlLO has them but £45 !!

Sure it needs 160mm? According to Celestron the tube width is 139.5mm. In which case 140mm will fit - £29 from FLO, or there’s a pair on Astro Buy & Sell for £15. 
 

https://www.celestron.com/products/powerseeker-127eq-telescope

[Mr_Cat]

Yeah - I did read the same and went looking but as I had the OTA out I measured it...


 

[RamJacCorp]

Thank you very much, to everyone who responded. While I'm a little disappointed to hear the less-than-stellar reviews of this telescope, it's certainly better than no telescope (maybe). Unfortunately, I have no budget for this hobby, so I can't spend a lot to replace the missing mount and rings (nope, I didn't get the rings, either). Thanks for the suggestion, PeterStuds! I'll look up the dobs base, and see if I can rig something up. Still have to find some rings, though, unless there's a way to come up with a suitable replacement. I wish I could take one of you up on your offer (like MrCat), but since I'm in the US, the shipping would probably kill me. 

[PeterStudz]

12 minutes ago, RamJacCorp said:

Thank you very much, to everyone who responded. While I'm a little disappointed to hear the less-than-stellar reviews of this telescope, it's certainly better than no telescope (maybe). Unfortunately, I have no budget for this hobby, so I can't spend a lot to replace the missing mount and rings (nope, I didn't get the rings, either). Thanks for the suggestion, PeterStuds! I'll look up the dobs base, and see if I can rig something up. Still have to find some rings, though, unless there's a way to come up with a suitable replacement. I wish I could take one of you up on your offer (like MrCat), but since I'm in the US, the shipping would probably kill me. 

I had a feeling that you might be in the US - no worries and thanks for the reply.

If you are strapped-for-cash then it can be a difficult hobby to get into. Mind, if you live in a location that’s blessed with dark skies it will help!

You can make a Dob base without tube rings. You just need to make something called a “tube cradle” - basically a simple plywood box. 

This is an old site but it explains everything. Inc making a Dobsonian telescope from scratch. But at the end there are details about making a mount. However, It can be made even simpler than shown. Might be worth having a look at the link near the end “Photos from Builders”. Good luck! 

https://stellafane.org/tm/dob/

 

[Mr_Cat]

11 minutes ago, RamJacCorp said:

Thank you very much, to everyone who responded. While I'm a little disappointed to hear the less-than-stellar reviews of this telescope, it's certainly better than no telescope (maybe). Unfortunately, I have no budget for this hobby, so I can't spend a lot to replace the missing mount and rings (nope, I didn't get the rings, either). Thanks for the suggestion, PeterStuds! I'll look up the dobs base, and see if I can rig something up. Still have to find some rings, though, unless there's a way to come up with a suitable replacement. I wish I could take one of you up on your offer (like MrCat), but since I'm in the US, the shipping would probably kill me. 

yeah, that would be expensive !!
looking further down this page they have built a box around the OTA so that would be possible and cheap 

https://theselfsufficientliving.com/diy-telescope-build/