False comparison. For example, we could not determine the composition of moon rocks with a telescope. We could not determine aspects of the geology of the moon with telescopes. Distance isn't the relevant factor: brightness and (angular) size is.
Also, you are *way* off in your distances and our capabilities. Galaxies are *millions* of light years away. But we don't see in as much detail at that distance as we do with things up close. other stars are light years away and we can barely get images of their planets at all (we use other techniques to show they have planets).
So, for example, we cannot see the landers from the original moon missions with any Earth-based telescope. Even turning a professional grade telescope towards the moon runs the risk of harming the telescope: the amount of light reflected from the moon would overwhelm the system.
As another example, telescopes alone produced some information about Mars, but the level of detail we got when we started sending probes was/is simply not possible with a telescope. We have learned a tremendous amount about the geology and history of Mars by actually having probes there. But the extra we could learn from having a person there goes well beyond even what a probe can do.
As another example, compare what we could see with the Hubble telescope for Pluto with what we were able to see by sending a probe past it. There is really no comparison.