Prof that we went to the moon

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.

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!?

Well, they certainly have better things to do than cater to a few conspiracy whack-job flat earth idiots.

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...

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.

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 $20,000,000.

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

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 29, 2017, 08:15:36 AM

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!

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 29, 2017, 08:01:37 AM

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.

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

Not to mention the fact that you would need some very expensive adaptive optics in order to compensate for the atmospheric shimmer.

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on July 29, 2017, 08:31:39 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 29, 2017, 08:15:36 AM

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!

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter & the JAXA SELENE Moon probe both have high resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites.  Very cool pictures.

Mike

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 29, 2017, 08:34:50 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 29, 2017, 08:01:37 AM

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.

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

Not to mention the fact that you would need some very expensive adaptive optics in order to compensate for the atmospheric shimmer.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 29, 2017, 08:42:56 AM

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on July 29, 2017, 08:31:39 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 29, 2017, 08:15:36 AM

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!

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter & the JAXA SELENE Moon probe both have high resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites.  Very cool pictures.

Mike

Links??? Would personally love to see those in high Res.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 29, 2017, 08:42:56 AM

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on July 29, 2017, 08:31:39 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 29, 2017, 08:15:36 AM

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!

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter & the JAXA SELENE Moon probe both have high resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites.  Very cool pictures.

Mike

Yes!

I posted a link in to them in reply #1

I guess they weren't good enough!

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 29, 2017, 08:34:50 AM

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.

This whole thing is stemming around Satellites that have the high res cameras on them, why no 121 megapixel shots like the earth from them but of the moon instead? Russia just released a 121 megapixel series of video/photo of the earth. 1st time to have that res. so if they can do it for earth, why not the moon? how hard is to snap a shot when its in full view of the satellite? would love to see those photos!

not talking about seeing those high res from earth, Atmosphere fucks that up 10000x over.

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 29, 2017, 09:05:02 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 29, 2017, 08:42:56 AM

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on July 29, 2017, 08:31:39 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 29, 2017, 08:15:36 AM

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!

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter & the JAXA SELENE Moon probe both have high resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites.  Very cool pictures.

Mike

Links??? Would personally love to see those in high Res.

Here you go...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=high+resolution+apollo+landing+sites+selene+lunar+reconnaissance+orbiter

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.

Lol. Don't know anything about optics, do you?

The Nikon P900 can go up to 83X and it cost under $600.

83X! Wow!! That sounds awesome!!! Do you even know what that means? How does it have anything to do with what you're demanding?

These are getting better and better.

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

Quote from: Edge_Loop on July 29, 2017, 09:20:55 AM

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.

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 29, 2017, 08:34:50 AM

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 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. 

The telescope he wants is impossible.

Mike

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 29, 2017, 09:24:10 AM

Quote from: Edge_Loop on July 29, 2017, 09:20:55 AM

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 didn't mean to imply otherwise.  Sorry.

Mike

I admit that I am susceptible to good conspiracy theories. I spent a small portion of the late 90's believing the moon landings had been faked (and btw - I do not find FE to be a good conspiracy theory as its proposed scale is rediculous)

I still believe there are things they lied about, but I have seen enough to accept the landings happened.

However, EVEN IF the moon landings had been faked, it does not mean the earth is flat, it discredits some proof of a spherical earth, but there is still plenty more evidence, so I'm not sure what the point of this thread is?

Quote from: Kami on July 29, 2017, 09:11:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 29, 2017, 08:34:50 AM

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 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. 

The telescope he wants is impossible.

Mike

My bad. It is not the largest, but IMO the best currently available ground based telescope

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 29, 2017, 09:51:19 AM

Quote from: Kami on July 29, 2017, 09:11:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 29, 2017, 08:34:50 AM

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 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. 

The telescope he wants is impossible.

Mike

My bad. It is not the largest, but IMO the best currently available ground based telescope

You're right.  It's likely the best ground based system when they combine telescopes. 

It does say that it can get down to about 2 milliarcseconds which might be enough to resolve some of the landing sights.

Mike

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)
As far as I know, no earth satellite has a resolving ratio of 1 pixel per 0.5 meter, which the LRO has.

You are forgetting that the LRO doesn't only take photos in visible light, but also in rader, ultraviolet, infrared and neutrons. it also has a height meter. Visible light isn't the only thing scientists want.

Also, there is this:



Source: http://www.apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO_NAC_Apollo_11_Enhanced_Images.html
Taken at about 50 KM distance from lunar surface.

This is The Link I Found

https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

Also another interesting link that's Just new as of yesterday, so im sure some of you have seen it, but for those who haven't here she is, in all her glory!!!

MAYBE FINALLY Elon Musk will actually have it take off and we can have another perspective of what's really going on here

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/28/16054252/spacex-falcon-heavy-elon-musk-first-rocket-launch-november

This is The Link I Found

https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

Thanks! that is an awesome satellite indeed, I will surely oogle at those pictures.

I've read the article, and: "The images have a resolution of one kilometer per pixel"

That still does not match the resolution of LRO. Of course the LRO is much closer to the moon, it has an orbit from 12 miles to 103 miles (Depends on which year.) so it is not an unfair comparison. Also, the picture you linked is a composite. The current best satellite that takes single pictures of the entire earth takes pictures of 11000x11000, or 121 megabyte.

Still, the LRO has a higher spatial resolution than the Russian satellite ( 1km * pixel VS 0.5 meter * pixel)

Prof that we went to the moon

How about "prof" you even went to "collage".

Unless of course, english is your second language.

why wouldn't nasa want some atleast HALF DECENT shots of the moon and landing points so actually have CRYSTAL CLEAR proof

I thought everything from NASA was fake. 

This is The Link I Found

https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

Interesting, 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?

No, this wont out an end to it, people will still reject the evidence and pretend they were fake.

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?
They are quite close to Earth (at least the ones that give the resolution you want). It wouldn't be a simple case of pointing them at the moon and having them take a picture. You would need to put them into a lunar orbit.

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.