4 ms·
I don't remember what the scientific requirements were that necessitated the $100,000 lens (which isn't really scientific --- it's mostly sold to professional p
by antognini 10y ago
I don't remember what the scientific requirements were that necessitated the $100,000 lens (which isn't really scientific --- it's mostly sold to professional photographers), but given how limited funding is I'm sure that if they could have gotten away with a cheaper lens they would have. (Thinking back, the lens may have been closer to $60,000. It wasn't my project so I can't really remember.)
- phonon 10y agoEach ASAS-SN telescope uses 4 commercial camera lenses, at about $10k each. http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2171/AF-S-NIKKOR-400mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR.html http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Len... With one detector, at about $40k. https://telescopes.net/store/pl23042-1-bi-proline-series-e2v-ccd230-42-1-143-back-illuminated-midband.html https://telescopes.net/store/pl23042-1-bi-proline-series-e2v...
- dr_zoidberg 10y agoThere are cheaper lenses and CCDs which might strike a better price/performance ratio too -- I think that was the original thought behind saying "100k is too expensive!". Of course, those items you linked are beautiful machines of precision and quality. But maybe with a cheaper system, more targets can be tracked at the same time. So a $1k lens with a $1k sensor in a $500 tracker gets you 40 "telescopes" for $100k instead of 1~2.