your average camera lense. That might make a difference. I based that statement on something I read a few years ago on a NASA website about why the Hubble wasn't used to image the moon. The explaination stated at the moon was too bright and that they'd have to refocus the optics. Funny thing was, a few months later, they released an image of the rim of the moon, so perhaps the original article just got it wrong.

If the Hubble tried to image a satellite 1000 miles away, unless it was in nearly the same orbit, the relative velocities would be pretty high. That would make focusing and aiming pretty tricky. Besides, at that distance, the resolution probably wouldn't be much better than what Starfire and some other sensors already provide. For example, the Haystack Aux (HAX) radar at MIT Lincoln Labs can do a wideband image of a satellite with 12 cm resolution out to semi-synch. I've seen the results, they're pretty impressive.