4 ms·
The other difference is partly a consequence of the wide field of view. That thing has a huge front lens, which lets in a massive amount of light, so the bright
by mnw21cam 3y ago
The other difference is partly a consequence of the wide field of view. That thing has a huge front lens, which lets in a massive amount of light, so the brightness of the projected image on the sensor is much higher than a telescope that has a zoomed-in field of view. That means it is able to use a relatively short exposure and still see things in the sky that are fairly dim.
To use numbers to compare to any other camera, it has a 3.2 gigapixel sensor with a diameter of 640mm, and the "lens" (actually several mirrors) has a focal length of about 10m and a diameter of about 8m, giving it an f-ratio of f/1.2, which is very impressive (although the central part of the "lens" is obstructed, giving it a light-collecting ability more like an f/1.5 lens).
- ianburrell 3y agoThe Rubin telescope, like all larger telescopes, doesn't have a lens. It has a 27ft main mirror. I think the big difference is the size of secondary mirror which is 11ft in diameter. It can be compared to the neighboring Gemini South telescope which is similar size but has 3ft secondary and f16 focal length.