I used to be pretty heavy into astrophotography a few years ago. I have some moon pics somewhere but I can't find them right now. Anyway, to get a decent sized image of the moon on 35mm film I was using a 10in telescope at f6.3. That works out to be a lens with about a 1600mm focal length if I remember the formula correctly. P95Carry, it looks like the moon picture you posted was taken through a filter (polarizing maybe).
The moon is pretty bright. Relatively low exposure times can be achieved even at high f numbers, but with long focal lengths you can really see the atmosphere "swimming" in the view finder. You'll need a nice still, low humidity, night and time to make a bunch of exposures to get a really good, crisp, photo. Try and pick a night in the middle of several consecutive days of calm clear skies. These tend to be the most stable. Live on a mountain or in the desert, great! Live in Michigan like me, you take what you can get.
If you can, avoid shooting pictures over your house, garage, or anything that heat may be rising from. If the sun has been heating the ground or the roof of your house all day, try and give them some time to get closer to the ambient temperature.
Try to get away from any extraneous light sources. Nice dark skies are not needed when photographing the moon. Light polluted cities are fine, but find a place away from stray light. Your neighbors floodlight isn't going to do your pictures any good and you can get some really weird artifacts from off axis light sources like cars driving buy, etc.
Obviously you want a good stable mount, a cable release, and the fastest shutter speed you can get. Since the exposure time is going to be pretty low you can get away with the camera not tracking the moon across the sky.
Open up your lens as far as possible. Unless you have really good lenses, a good indicator is the price tag, you might want to stop it down one stop as most lenses are optically better in the middle. ED or apochromatic glass in your lenses is preferred but not necessary. Pictures of the moon tend to be very high in contrast. Lenses that are not "color corrected" can add a blue or rainbow hue at the edge of bright objects.
If you're using an SLR and it has a mirror lock up feature, use it. This eliminates one source of vibration in the camera. When photographing planets I used to do something called the "hat trick." Use something like a hat to cover the lens without touching it. Trip the shutter and wait for the vibrations to abate. Move the hat to start the exposure, return the hat in front of the lens, and close the shutter. This can be used in place of a cable release but consistent short exposures are going to be difficult. The "hat trick" is better for longer exposures but everything you do to remove camera motion gives you a slightly crisper picture if your equipment is up to the challenge.
This wont help with digital cameras, but I always used black and white film for the moon as it is finer grained than color film and the moon is pretty black and white anyway. If you are using film, use the lowest possible ISO number that still allows a reasonable shutter speed. The higher the ISO, the grainier the film.
When the moon is near the horizon and it looks huge, it's an optical illusion. It's angular size is the same when it's directly overhead. You should get a better picture shooting as close to the zenith (straight up) as possible. One of the reasons is that your camera simply has less atmosphere to see through than when shooting near the horizon.
One last thing I learned from moon pictures and astrophotography, good moon pictures always wow the average person more than galaxies and nebulas. Everyone knows the moon; few know what that obscure cloud of dust or the million light year away galaxy are.
Here's a pic I took of NGC7000 (North American Nebula) one summer a few years ago (300mm f/2.8, 45min exposure, probably unhypered Kodak PPF)...
