Hubble is same technology, made by the same lab on the same machines that are making the spy satellite camera (mirrors, mounts, foundations, controls, sensors, radios, drives, anti-motion (random satellite movement) controls/motion-following satellite (image tracking) controls and motors.
Problem with Hubble was the calibration of the grinding machinery (fundamentally) that incorrectly spaced and sized the mirror surface. Fortunately, it was a known error that they figured out how to re-correct with new hardware/software that could be loaded into the Hubble while in space.
Uh.. well simply no. The resolution of a telescope is angular, not spatial. Spatial can be calculated by the distance to the object, which the moon is LOTS farther than the earth from that orbit.
Second, the Hubble primary mirror error, a mistake in the conic constant of the surface due to a cap on the metering rod used for setting up the null test, was corrected by first using phase retrieval systems to validate the error then fixed using a lens system.
The resolution of the telescope, since it is now diffraction limited, is found by alpha = 2.44 * lamda / D, D being the diameter of the entrance pupil (2.4 meters), lamda being ~.5 micron. Alpha, therefore, is .5 micro Radian. The angular subtense of a 1 meter object sitting on the moon (385000 km) as viewed from a 569km orbit is 2.6 nano Radians. To resolve a 1 meter object, the primary mirror would have to be 2.44*.5E-6/2.6e-9, or 469 meters. That don't fit in a 4 meter payload ferring.