Helluva refractor .....

This 350-Pound Soviet Spy Satellite Lens Could Be Yours for $16,500
http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...atellite-lens/

50" long x 27.5" wide = F/5
Wonder what Mars would look like in this thing?
Still needs some costume made eyepieces.
We can talk to Mr. Nagler about it!

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:10:26 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
This 350-Pound Soviet Spy Satellite Lens Could Be Yours for $16,500
http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...atellite-lens/

50" long x 27.5" wide = F/5
Wonder what Mars would look like in this thing?
Still needs some costume made eyepieces.
We can talk to Mr. Nagler about it!

Given the speed, lack of ED glass then, I'd wager one element could be radioactive, with a nice 20-40% thorium oxide composition.

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:59:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:10:26 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
This 350-Pound Soviet Spy Satellite Lens Could Be Yours for $16,500
http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...atellite-lens/

50" long x 27.5" wide = F/5
Wonder what Mars would look like in this thing?
Still needs some costume made eyepieces.
We can talk to Mr. Nagler about it!

Given the speed, lack of ED glass then, I'd wager one element could be radioactive, with a nice 20-40% thorium oxide composition.

Radioactive?
Hmm! I didn't think about that?

On Thursday, 21 July 2016 08:59:19 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Given the speed, lack of ED glass then, I'd wager one element could be radioactive, with a nice 20-40% thorium oxide composition.

The once popular, Aero Ektar lenses were radioactive, I believe.
It was this which caused slow discoloration of the lens element.
I have the 7" F2.5 somewhere but have never used it.

On Thursday, 21 July 2016 03:30:43 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 21 July 2016 08:59:19 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Given the speed, lack of ED glass then, I'd wager one element could be radioactive, with a nice 20-40% thorium oxide composition.

The once popular, Aero Ektar lenses were radioactive, I believe.
It was this which caused slow discoloration of the lens element.
I have the 7" F2.5 somewhere but have never used it.

I think all of them are. The ones I've tested are. It's all they had for abnormal glass in the sizes they needed.

On Thursday, 21 July 2016 03:19:25 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:59:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:10:26 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
This 350-Pound Soviet Spy Satellite Lens Could Be Yours for $16,500
http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...atellite-lens/

50" long x 27.5" wide = F/5
Wonder what Mars would look like in this thing?
Still needs some costume made eyepieces.
We can talk to Mr. Nagler about it!

Given the speed, lack of ED glass then, I'd wager one element could be radioactive, with a nice 20-40% thorium oxide composition.

Radioactive?
Hmm! I didn't think about that?

Nothing dangerous really. A chest x-ray provides far more radiation than any of the lenses could, or a jetplane ride, as well as the usual background sources you are exposed to in a year.

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 10:17:12 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 21 July 2016 03:19:25 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:59:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:10:26 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
This 350-Pound Soviet Spy Satellite Lens Could Be Yours for $16,500
http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...atellite-lens/

50" long x 27.5" wide = F/5
Wonder what Mars would look like in this thing?
Still needs some costume made eyepieces.
We can talk to Mr. Nagler about it!

Given the speed, lack of ED glass then, I'd wager one element could be radioactive, with a nice 20-40% thorium oxide composition.

Radioactive?
Hmm! I didn't think about that?

Nothing dangerous really. A chest x-ray provides far more radiation than any of the lenses could, or a jetplane ride, as well as the usual background sources you are exposed to in a year.

Good! Than just bury the them thing next to Chernobyl!

On Thursday, 21 July 2016 13:33:00 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 10:17:12 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 21 July 2016 03:19:25 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:59:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:10:26 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
This 350-Pound Soviet Spy Satellite Lens Could Be Yours for $16,500
http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...atellite-lens/

50" long x 27.5" wide = F/5
Wonder what Mars would look like in this thing?
Still needs some costume made eyepieces.
We can talk to Mr. Nagler about it!

Given the speed, lack of ED glass then, I'd wager one element could be radioactive, with a nice 20-40% thorium oxide composition.

Radioactive?
Hmm! I didn't think about that?

Nothing dangerous really. A chest x-ray provides far more radiation than any of the lenses could, or a jetplane ride, as well as the usual background sources you are exposed to in a year.

Good! Than just bury the them thing next to Chernobyl!

Chernobyl was vastly overblown as a dangerous radioactive accident except at the very time it happened and poor Russian "clean-up" people died from high exposures. Now, it's practically the best wild-life sanctuary the Russkies ever though up.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:41:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Chernobyl was vastly overblown as a dangerous radioactive accident except at the very time it happened and poor Russian "clean-up" people died from high exposures. Now, it's practically the best wild-life sanctuary the Russkies ever though up.

Sure, if you ignore several thousand human deaths, the loss to human
activity of a thousand square miles, the relocation of a half-million
people, cleanup costs of several hundred billion dollars, the
continued risk posed by the plant itself and the poorly stored waste
produced by it and the surrounding region, and germ-line damage to
many plant and animal species.

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 12:41:21 AM UTC+1, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 21 July 2016 13:33:00 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 10:17:12 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 21 July 2016 03:19:25 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:59:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:10:26 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
This 350-Pound Soviet Spy Satellite Lens Could Be Yours for $16,500
http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...atellite-lens/

50" long x 27.5" wide = F/5
Wonder what Mars would look like in this thing?
Still needs some costume made eyepieces.
We can talk to Mr. Nagler about it!

Given the speed, lack of ED glass then, I'd wager one element could be radioactive, with a nice 20-40% thorium oxide composition.

Radioactive?
Hmm! I didn't think about that?

Nothing dangerous really. A chest x-ray provides far more radiation than any of the lenses could, or a jetplane ride, as well as the usual background sources you are exposed to in a year.

Good! Than just bury the them thing next to Chernobyl!

Chernobyl was vastly overblown as a dangerous radioactive accident except at the very time it happened and poor Russian "clean-up" people died from high exposures. Now, it's practically the best wild-life sanctuary the Russkies ever though up.

They bring many thousands of children over to Ireland each year from the Chernobyl region, good people who care for those who were victims of the nuclear age. A ****ing coward like you couldn't bear to watch the consequences of what happened long after the human inflicted catastrophe no more than the town people who were forced by allied soldiers to look at the victims of the extermination camps after they were liberated in WWII.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=496_1388090800

These kids are loved.