I don't have enough room in the comments for this, so I'm writing here, although it's probably not a true answer since I know nothing about that particular telescope.
Anyway, if you look at many SCT systems, and their derivatives such as Ritchey-Chretien, Dall-Kirkham, etc, the distance between primary and secondary is often not too big.
If the secondary has negative curvature, that means one of its focal points is behind it. That's where the focal point of the primary also is. So the focal length of the primary is bigger than it seems just by looking at the picture. There's a focal point geometrically located in front of the telescope; the distance between it and the secondary or the primary depends on the design parameters of the system. It can't be too close to the secondary, or else the secondary would have to have extraordinary amounts of curvature.
Also keep in mind that there must be a gap between the edge of the primary and the inner surface of the OTA, so the primary is smaller than the visual estimate of the hole.
We also don't see the bottom of the instrument, so we don't know how far the primary mirror cell is protruding out the back of the instrument - though that's limited by the mount's big fork.
Also, look at a small SCT, such as the Celestron EdgeHD8 OTA. Visually, the tube seems a bit longer, compared to its diameter. However, the EdgeHD is a much smaller instrument. The relative amount "wasted" at the bottom by the primary cell is different. Also, the secondary is "buried" into the OTA, whereas the 0.65m scope has its secondary sticking out of the OTA.
Anyway, this is a bunch of handwaving based on visual estimates. It is possible that this is a system with a primary somewhat more strongly curved than usual.