There are certainly no 20-30m telescopes in space (Also, imagine how annoyed astronomers would be if they found out the biggest most advanced space telescope in history was in space and pointing down...).
I do wonder what would be possible to resolve using multiple 2.4m scopes to create a larger synthetic aperture?
Resolving text on a license plate which would be at a very oblique angle (so more atmosphere) is probably not worth trying.
Hubble was built by the same contractors that build the Keyhole satellites. They whole idea from the beginning was to reuse the spy satellite hardware for astronomy.
But we followed the making of hubble long before it launched. Why would anyone believe such a silly rumor when the development of the telescope was in the open?
What makes it a rumor? In the video Scott states that the “cost saving measure” of reducing the target mirror diameter down to 2.4m was to use the same manufacturing as these exact spy satellites.
Do you not understand that if a top secret spy satellite is gifted to astronomers, a cover story - i.e. a lie - will be made up about how it is developed by brilliant civilians?
If there was a 3-5m spy satellite I wouldn't be surprised, but if there was a 20-30m spy satellite (I.e. a project likely larger in scale and complexity than the ISS) then I'd be surprised.
Perhaps worth noting, there are certainly telescopes of this scale in space--they're just radio telescopes, where the reflector can conveniently be unfurled after launch.
You can glance at this thread [0] for comparison of commercial and speculated military antenna scales (up to 100m!)
