Well, they certainly have better things to do than cater to a few conspiracy whack-job flat earth idiots.
To end all this shit, if we really did go to the moon or not, let NASA make an optical telescope that anybody can by, under $2,000 that can see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program. Only then will this close.It's not a matter of zoom but resolution. You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.
The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.
Well, they certainly have better things to do than cater to a few conspiracy whack-job flat earth idiots.
Dude I guarantee you MILLIONS of ppl have thought about this over the span of 10+ years... just not all speak about it and or are on here to voice it, dumbass lmfaooooooo cause yeah, out of 7 BILLION people only a "few conspiracy flat earth whack-jobs" want it bahahahaha most obnoxious thing I have heard here so far. hats of to you for wearing the dunce cap today dude!
I know for a FACT there are 100's if not 1000's of people who LOVE space and are obsessed with Moon and other planets etc and would PAY for a CLEAR photo that's blown up on the Lunar Module Sitting on the Moon with the tracks from Neil/Buzz etc... so don't spout off that bullshit of only your FE's want that. that shit would sell like fkn hotcakes.
annnnd also give you guys a biiiiit more credit. yes you will have goofs say its photoshop or fake etc but you will have rational people take it into consideration...
Not to mention the fact that you would need some very expensive adaptive optics in order to compensate for the atmospheric shimmer.To end all this shit, if we really did go to the moon or not, let NASA make an optical telescope that anybody can by, under $2,000 that can see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program. Only then will this close.It's not a matter of zoom but resolution. You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.
The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.
The resolution in arcseconds is a simple calculation.
R = 11.6 / D
There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree and the moon is about 0.5 degrees across the sky or about 1800 arcseconds. Not to mention the wave length of light.
The descent stage is about 4m across which will work out to about .002 arcseconds. By comparison, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds. The Hubble can't resolve the Apollo equipment on the moon.
A quick calculation shows you'd need telescope with a mirror 60ish meters across to have the necessary resolution to see Apollo on the moon. It would be more like 100m if you want to see the smallest objects. There are commercial telescopes that will work but you certainly are not going to get something sub $2000.
The cost of a telescope goes up exponentially as diameter goes up. Add in the fact that most telescopes are blue shifted because it's easier to resolve the shorter wave lengths. All this considered and you'd be lucky to get something for under $2,000,000.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has the resolution to see something about half a meter across but you're not likely to believe those pictures.
Mike
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter & the JAXA SELENE Moon probe both have high resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites. Very cool pictures.Well, they certainly have better things to do than cater to a few conspiracy whack-job flat earth idiots.
Dude I guarantee you MILLIONS of ppl have thought about this over the span of 10+ years... just not all speak about it and or are on here to voice it, dumbass lmfaooooooo cause yeah, out of 7 BILLION people only a "few conspiracy flat earth whack-jobs" want it bahahahaha most obnoxious thing I have heard here so far. hats of to you for wearing the dunce cap today dude!
I know for a FACT there are 100's if not 1000's of people who LOVE space and are obsessed with Moon and other planets etc and would PAY for a CLEAR photo that's blown up on the Lunar Module Sitting on the Moon with the tracks from Neil/Buzz etc... so don't spout off that bullshit of only your FE's want that. that shit would sell like fkn hotcakes.
annnnd also give you guys a biiiiit more credit. yes you will have goofs say its photoshop or fake etc but you will have rational people take it into consideration...
I would absolutely LOVE some high res photos of landing sites.
But, you missed my point. NASA does not need to prove anything to you, especially considering the costs involved. While in the future, it nay be feasible to piggyback a mission to shut you whack-jobs up, it simply isn't a priority!
Not to mention that there isn't a 100 meter telescope in existence. I think the largest is about 10 meters which cost about $150 million to construct.Not to mention the fact that you would need some very expensive adaptive optics in order to compensate for the atmospheric shimmer.To end all this shit, if we really did go to the moon or not, let NASA make an optical telescope that anybody can by, under $2,000 that can see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program. Only then will this close.It's not a matter of zoom but resolution. You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.
The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.
The resolution in arcseconds is a simple calculation.
R = 11.6 / D
There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree and the moon is about 0.5 degrees across the sky or about 1800 arcseconds. Not to mention the wave length of light.
The descent stage is about 4m across which will work out to about .002 arcseconds. By comparison, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds. The Hubble can't resolve the Apollo equipment on the moon.
A quick calculation shows you'd need telescope with a mirror 60ish meters across to have the necessary resolution to see Apollo on the moon. It would be more like 100m if you want to see the smallest objects. There are commercial telescopes that will work but you certainly are not going to get something sub $2000.
The cost of a telescope goes up exponentially as diameter goes up. Add in the fact that most telescopes are blue shifted because it's easier to resolve the shorter wave lengths. All this considered and you'd be lucky to get something for under $2,000,000.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has the resolution to see something about half a meter across but you're not likely to believe those pictures.
Mike
It's not a matter of zoom but resolution. You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.
The resolution in arcseconds is a simple calculation.
R = 11.6 / D
There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree and the moon is about 0.5 degrees across the sky or about 1800 arcseconds. Not to mention the wave length of light.
The descent stage is about 4m across which will work out to about .002 arcseconds. By comparison, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds. The Hubble can't resolve the Apollo equipment on the moon.
A quick calculation shows you'd need telescope with a mirror 60ish meters across to have the necessary resolution to see Apollo on the moon. It would be more like 100m if you want to see the smallest objects. There are commercial telescopes that will work but you certainly are not going to get something sub $2000.
The cost of a telescope goes up exponentially as diameter goes up. Add in the fact that most telescopes are blue shifted because it's easier to resolve the shorter wave lengths. All this considered and you'd be lucky to get something for under $2,000,000.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has the resolution to see something about half a meter across but you're not likely to believe those pictures.
Mike
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter & the JAXA SELENE Moon probe both have high resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites. Very cool pictures.Well, they certainly have better things to do than cater to a few conspiracy whack-job flat earth idiots.
Dude I guarantee you MILLIONS of ppl have thought about this over the span of 10+ years... just not all speak about it and or are on here to voice it, dumbass lmfaooooooo cause yeah, out of 7 BILLION people only a "few conspiracy flat earth whack-jobs" want it bahahahaha most obnoxious thing I have heard here so far. hats of to you for wearing the dunce cap today dude!
I know for a FACT there are 100's if not 1000's of people who LOVE space and are obsessed with Moon and other planets etc and would PAY for a CLEAR photo that's blown up on the Lunar Module Sitting on the Moon with the tracks from Neil/Buzz etc... so don't spout off that bullshit of only your FE's want that. that shit would sell like fkn hotcakes.
annnnd also give you guys a biiiiit more credit. yes you will have goofs say its photoshop or fake etc but you will have rational people take it into consideration...
I would absolutely LOVE some high res photos of landing sites.
But, you missed my point. NASA does not need to prove anything to you, especially considering the costs involved. While in the future, it nay be feasible to piggyback a mission to shut you whack-jobs up, it simply isn't a priority!
Mike
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter & the JAXA SELENE Moon probe both have high resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites. Very cool pictures.Well, they certainly have better things to do than cater to a few conspiracy whack-job flat earth idiots.
Dude I guarantee you MILLIONS of ppl have thought about this over the span of 10+ years... just not all speak about it and or are on here to voice it, dumbass lmfaooooooo cause yeah, out of 7 BILLION people only a "few conspiracy flat earth whack-jobs" want it bahahahaha most obnoxious thing I have heard here so far. hats of to you for wearing the dunce cap today dude!
I know for a FACT there are 100's if not 1000's of people who LOVE space and are obsessed with Moon and other planets etc and would PAY for a CLEAR photo that's blown up on the Lunar Module Sitting on the Moon with the tracks from Neil/Buzz etc... so don't spout off that bullshit of only your FE's want that. that shit would sell like fkn hotcakes.
annnnd also give you guys a biiiiit more credit. yes you will have goofs say its photoshop or fake etc but you will have rational people take it into consideration...
I would absolutely LOVE some high res photos of landing sites.
But, you missed my point. NASA does not need to prove anything to you, especially considering the costs involved. While in the future, it nay be feasible to piggyback a mission to shut you whack-jobs up, it simply isn't a priority!
Mike
It's not a matter of zoom but resolution. You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.
The resolution in arcseconds is a simple calculation.
R = 11.6 / D
There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree and the moon is about 0.5 degrees across the sky or about 1800 arcseconds. Not to mention the wave length of light.
The descent stage is about 4m across which will work out to about .002 arcseconds. By comparison, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds. The Hubble can't resolve the Apollo equipment on the moon.
A quick calculation shows you'd need telescope with a mirror 60ish meters across to have the necessary resolution to see Apollo on the moon. It would be more like 100m if you want to see the smallest objects. There are commercial telescopes that will work but you certainly are not going to get something sub $2000.
The cost of a telescope goes up exponentially as diameter goes up. Add in the fact that most telescopes are blue shifted because it's easier to resolve the shorter wave lengths. All this considered and you'd be lucky to get something for under $2,000,000.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has the resolution to see something about half a meter across but you're not likely to believe those pictures.
Mike
The biggest optical telescope so far is the VLT, the biggest one in the near future is the E-ELT with a diameter of 39 meters. But the really bad thing is the atmosphere: Atmospheric turbulences and blurring restrict the seeing of a telescope (no matter how good) even in the best places (atacama desert/south pole) to about 0.8 arcseconds. There is no chance to see the lunar landing sites with a ground-based telescope, no matter how much money you put into it.
A telescope with a resolution a hundred times better than hubble, for $2,000. That is a nice, but quite naive dream.
Here you go...The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter & the JAXA SELENE Moon probe both have high resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites. Very cool pictures.Well, they certainly have better things to do than cater to a few conspiracy whack-job flat earth idiots.
Dude I guarantee you MILLIONS of ppl have thought about this over the span of 10+ years... just not all speak about it and or are on here to voice it, dumbass lmfaooooooo cause yeah, out of 7 BILLION people only a "few conspiracy flat earth whack-jobs" want it bahahahaha most obnoxious thing I have heard here so far. hats of to you for wearing the dunce cap today dude!
I know for a FACT there are 100's if not 1000's of people who LOVE space and are obsessed with Moon and other planets etc and would PAY for a CLEAR photo that's blown up on the Lunar Module Sitting on the Moon with the tracks from Neil/Buzz etc... so don't spout off that bullshit of only your FE's want that. that shit would sell like fkn hotcakes.
annnnd also give you guys a biiiiit more credit. yes you will have goofs say its photoshop or fake etc but you will have rational people take it into consideration...
I would absolutely LOVE some high res photos of landing sites.
But, you missed my point. NASA does not need to prove anything to you, especially considering the costs involved. While in the future, it nay be feasible to piggyback a mission to shut you whack-jobs up, it simply isn't a priority!
Mike
Links??? Would personally love to see those in high Res.
To end all this shit, if we really did go to the moon or not, let NASA make an optical telescope that anybody can by, under $2,000 that can see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program. Only then will this close.
The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.
These are getting better and better.It will never be as good as a commercial observatory...which still can't resolve the landing sites.
These are getting better and better.It will never be as good as a commercial observatory...which still can't resolve the landing sites.
Mike
I believe Gran Telescopio Canarias is the largest at 10.4m. Although, the VLT and operate in interferometric mode they can combine the 8.2m telescopes electronically to create a larger effective telescope...very cool.It's not a matter of zoom but resolution. You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.
The resolution in arcseconds is a simple calculation.
R = 11.6 / D
There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree and the moon is about 0.5 degrees across the sky or about 1800 arcseconds. Not to mention the wave length of light.
The descent stage is about 4m across which will work out to about .002 arcseconds. By comparison, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds. The Hubble can't resolve the Apollo equipment on the moon.
A quick calculation shows you'd need telescope with a mirror 60ish meters across to have the necessary resolution to see Apollo on the moon. It would be more like 100m if you want to see the smallest objects. There are commercial telescopes that will work but you certainly are not going to get something sub $2000.
The cost of a telescope goes up exponentially as diameter goes up. Add in the fact that most telescopes are blue shifted because it's easier to resolve the shorter wave lengths. All this considered and you'd be lucky to get something for under $2,000,000.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has the resolution to see something about half a meter across but you're not likely to believe those pictures.
Mike
The biggest optical telescope so far is the VLT, the biggest one in the near future is the E-ELT with a diameter of 39 meters. But the really bad thing is the atmosphere: Atmospheric turbulences and blurring restrict the seeing of a telescope (no matter how good) even in the best places (atacama desert/south pole) to about 0.8 arcseconds. There is no chance to see the lunar landing sites with a ground-based telescope, no matter how much money you put into it.
A telescope with a resolution a hundred times better than hubble, for $2,000. That is a nice, but quite naive dream.
EDIT: I made a mistake, the E-ELT will have adaptive optics that try to counter atmospheric turbulence, significantly reducing the effects. The seeing will still not be good enough to clearly depict the moon landing sites.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Sorry.These are getting better and better.It will never be as good as a commercial observatory...which still can't resolve the landing sites.
Mike
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Inftatearths thread topics are getting 'better and better'.
I am well aware that what he's saying is nonsense.
I believe Gran Telescopio Canarias is the largest at 10.4m. Although, the VLT and operate in interferometric mode they can combine the 8.2m telescopes electronically to create a larger effective telescope...very cool.It's not a matter of zoom but resolution. You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.
The resolution in arcseconds is a simple calculation.
R = 11.6 / D
There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree and the moon is about 0.5 degrees across the sky or about 1800 arcseconds. Not to mention the wave length of light.
The descent stage is about 4m across which will work out to about .002 arcseconds. By comparison, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds. The Hubble can't resolve the Apollo equipment on the moon.
A quick calculation shows you'd need telescope with a mirror 60ish meters across to have the necessary resolution to see Apollo on the moon. It would be more like 100m if you want to see the smallest objects. There are commercial telescopes that will work but you certainly are not going to get something sub $2000.
The cost of a telescope goes up exponentially as diameter goes up. Add in the fact that most telescopes are blue shifted because it's easier to resolve the shorter wave lengths. All this considered and you'd be lucky to get something for under $2,000,000.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has the resolution to see something about half a meter across but you're not likely to believe those pictures.
Mike
The biggest optical telescope so far is the VLT, the biggest one in the near future is the E-ELT with a diameter of 39 meters. But the really bad thing is the atmosphere: Atmospheric turbulences and blurring restrict the seeing of a telescope (no matter how good) even in the best places (atacama desert/south pole) to about 0.8 arcseconds. There is no chance to see the lunar landing sites with a ground-based telescope, no matter how much money you put into it.
A telescope with a resolution a hundred times better than hubble, for $2,000. That is a nice, but quite naive dream.
EDIT: I made a mistake, the E-ELT will have adaptive optics that try to counter atmospheric turbulence, significantly reducing the effects. The seeing will still not be good enough to clearly depict the moon landing sites.
The telescope he wants is impossible.
Mike
You're right. It's likely the best ground based system when they combine telescopes.I believe Gran Telescopio Canarias is the largest at 10.4m. Although, the VLT and operate in interferometric mode they can combine the 8.2m telescopes electronically to create a larger effective telescope...very cool.It's not a matter of zoom but resolution. You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.
The resolution in arcseconds is a simple calculation.
R = 11.6 / D
There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree and the moon is about 0.5 degrees across the sky or about 1800 arcseconds. Not to mention the wave length of light.
The descent stage is about 4m across which will work out to about .002 arcseconds. By comparison, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds. The Hubble can't resolve the Apollo equipment on the moon.
A quick calculation shows you'd need telescope with a mirror 60ish meters across to have the necessary resolution to see Apollo on the moon. It would be more like 100m if you want to see the smallest objects. There are commercial telescopes that will work but you certainly are not going to get something sub $2000.
The cost of a telescope goes up exponentially as diameter goes up. Add in the fact that most telescopes are blue shifted because it's easier to resolve the shorter wave lengths. All this considered and you'd be lucky to get something for under $2,000,000.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has the resolution to see something about half a meter across but you're not likely to believe those pictures.
Mike
The biggest optical telescope so far is the VLT, the biggest one in the near future is the E-ELT with a diameter of 39 meters. But the really bad thing is the atmosphere: Atmospheric turbulences and blurring restrict the seeing of a telescope (no matter how good) even in the best places (atacama desert/south pole) to about 0.8 arcseconds. There is no chance to see the lunar landing sites with a ground-based telescope, no matter how much money you put into it.
A telescope with a resolution a hundred times better than hubble, for $2,000. That is a nice, but quite naive dream.
EDIT: I made a mistake, the E-ELT will have adaptive optics that try to counter atmospheric turbulence, significantly reducing the effects. The seeing will still not be good enough to clearly depict the moon landing sites.
The telescope he wants is impossible.
Mike
My bad. It is not the largest, but IMO the best currently available ground based telescope
alas, we have 121 megapixel cameras taking shots that are HD detail of the earth from above but you get this blurry like blackberry 2001 type 3 megapixel looking bullshit photos of the moon!?!?!? lmfao Seems a little odd don't ya think? why wouldn't nasa want some atleast HALF DECENT shots of the moon and landing points so actually have CRYSTAL CLEAR proof they can blow up and hang in the office so they can actually be proud of that "accomplishment" in modern space travel!? always got me wondering!? and plz don't say "nasa has better things to do" "not worth the $$" (even thought they are funded billions) "been to the moon so why look at it again" cause we use those cameras to take photos of other irrelevant things so why not proper pics of the moon!?Can you give me a link to a satellite that takes single 121 megapixel photos? (Not composites)
This is The Link I Found
https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels
Prof that we went to the moonHow about "prof" you even went to "collage".
why wouldn't nasa want some atleast HALF DECENT shots of the moon and landing points so actually have CRYSTAL CLEAR proofI thought everything from NASA was fake.
This is The Link I FoundInteresting, but at 1km per pixel, and at a height of 35,000km, it's still quite some distance from the moon. How would it see something 4 meters across?
https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels
alas, we have 121 megapixel cameras taking shots that are HD detail of the earth from above but you get this blurry like blackberry 2001 type 3 megapixel looking bullshit photos of the moon!?!?!? lmfao Seems a little odd don't ya think? why wouldn't nasa want some atleast HALF DECENT shots of the moon and landing points so actually have CRYSTAL CLEAR proof they can blow up and hang in the office so they can actually be proud of that "accomplishment" in modern space travel!? always got me wondering!? and plz don't say "nasa has better things to do" "not worth the $$" (even thought they are funded billions) "been to the moon so why look at it again" cause we use those cameras to take photos of other irrelevant things so why not proper pics of the moon!?Yes, we have camearas taking detailed pictures of Earth, so what?
annnnd also give you guys a biiiiit more credit. yes you will have goofs say its photoshop or fake etc but you will have rational people take it into consideration...There is already enough evidence for the rational people.
To end all this shit, if we really did go to the moon or not, let NASA make an optical telescope that anybody can by, under $2,000 that can see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program. Only then will this close.
The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .You, Mr InFlatEarth are a total fraud!
At 300 zoom, the math states that we should see images of 35 meters long and thus be able to see the moon landings if they truly went to the moon.
An object 35 m across at a distance of 384,400 kmsubtends an angle of only 0.0000052°, that is 0.00031 min of arc or 0.019 arcsecs!;D ;D If my calculations are correct your magic camera should see a dime at almost 200 km! ;D ;DI want one for Christmas!
So, Mr InFlatEarth, you are claiming that a ground-based digital camera has a better resolution than the Hubble space telescope which has a theoretical angular resolution of about 0.05 arcseconds.
Here is a bit on some enhancements to the Hale 200" telescope on Mt Palomar:Quote from: Craig MackayWe have used the 5m telescope at the Palomar Observatory in California and a conventional bright-star adaptive optics system, combined with lucky imaging, to demonstrate our technique. Example results from our observations are shown in Figure 2. The images obtained using our adaptation of the lucky imaging technique have significantly better angular resolution than images obtained in the standard manner from the 5m Palomar telescope and from the Hubble Advanced Camera for Surveys. This allows greater detail to be observed for the same regions of the sky. Indeed, the highest resolution image shown in Figure 2 has the highest resolution of any image ever taken at visible or near-IR wavelengths for faint targets.In other words, the best resolution achieved to that date for a ground based telescope was 35 milliarcsecond and YOU claim a digital camera can achieve 19 milliarcsecs.(http://spie.org/Images/Graphics/Newsroom/Imported-2014/005408/005408_10_fig2.jpg)Figure 2. The core of a globular cluster (Messier object M13) imaged with three different systems. Left: Natural seeing with the Palomar Observatory 5m telescope, angular resolution ∼0.65 arcsecond. Middle: Hubble Advanced Camera for Surveys, angular resolution ∼120 milliarcsecond. Right: Lucky Camera and low-order adaptive optics with the 5m Palomar telescope, angular resolution 35 milliarcsecond. The ability to resolve small, faint objects in the middle and right images illustrates their high resolutions.
From: SPIE, High-resolution imaging with large ground-based telescopes (http://spie.org/newsroom/5408-high-resolution-imaging-with-large-ground-based-telescopes)What a total joke you are!Now I'll grant you that anyone can make a mistake, but to make a blunder like and not immediately see that it is ridiculous,means that ou have no idea what you are talking about.
Have a look at
Why can't we see the Apollo lunar landers on the Moon from Earth? Curious Droid
Please, oh please, run away and get some (uncommon) sense before wasting everybody's time with your utter rubbish!
You might also be (not) interested in
Ultra Close Up Views of the Apollo 11 Landing Site - GoneToPlaid, ytmoog
To end all this shit, if we really did go to the moon or not, let NASA make an optical telescope that anybody can by, under $2,000 that can see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program. Only then will this close.The Dawes' limit gives you a problem.
The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.
To end all this shit, if we really did go to the moon or not, let NASA make an optical telescope that anybody can by, under $2,000 that can see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program. Only then will this close.The Dawes' limit gives you a problem.
The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes%27_limit
Simply put, there is no way to make an optical telescope under $2000 to meet your qualifications. In order to resolve images of Apollo hardware at the distance of the moon from the Earth you'll need a lens far larger than any that has yet been made. The biggest telescopes currently in use have a resolution at the distance of the Moon of at best 200 feet per pixel.
The latest thing in clearing atmospheric distortion is lasers and computers.To end all this shit, if we really did go to the moon or not, let NASA make an optical telescope that anybody can by, under $2,000 that can see the moon landing sites of the Apollo program. Only then will this close.The Dawes' limit gives you a problem.
The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes%27_limit
Simply put, there is no way to make an optical telescope under $2000 to meet your qualifications. In order to resolve images of Apollo hardware at the distance of the moon from the Earth you'll need a lens far larger than any that has yet been made. The biggest telescopes currently in use have a resolution at the distance of the Moon of at best 200 feet per pixel.
That presumes perfect "seeing"; no confounding effects from looking through the atmosphere. That can be mitigated to a good degree using adaptive optics, but not for anything within several orders or magnitude of $2000 - just for the AO system.
There's another interesting aspect to this proposal: finding the right place to look! If you had a suitable optical system and a sensor capable of resolving 0.5m per pixel, and a 100-megapixel sensor (say, 10,000 pixels square), the image would be 5 km on a side, about 2.5 arc-seconds square. Your mounting system would have to be extremely precise just to know where you're looking and exceedingly steady just to keep the same field of view. This is also far from free. In fact, with many serious amateur telescopes, the mount costs more than the optics (although, throwing adaptive optics into the mix would probably change this). The image of an object 5m on a side would occupy 100 pixels out of your 100 million pixel image, assuming it's in it somewhere. Finding a needle in a haystack suddenly seems a lot easier by comparison.
Not even big, bad, scary NASA can do the impossible. Their competence in accomplishing some very difficult things has apparently convinced some people that they can do whatever they want by sheer will, but, alas, that isn't the case. Very difficult and impossible are not the same. Sorry.
That is going to be difficult, FErs don't know the height and size of the balloon. They have to yet make it up.
Can someone please crunch the numbers for the resolution it would take to view the magic balloons that hold up the "satellites" we are all using?
Thanks in advance!