I think your response almost perfectly exemplifies the kind of luddism that's going to get washed away in the tsunami of stuff heading north up the gravity well.

We know today that the Hubble instrument cost about $4.7 billion, and lifetime costs as of 2010 are around $10 billion [1] which doesn't appear to have included launch costs (1 initial launch and I believe 5 servicing missions) which at around $450 million per launch is quite a bill of around $2.7 billion in total program launch costs.

One might try to make the argument that shuttle missions involved multiple mission objectives for each launch (and thus the total cost shouldn't be borne by the HST alone). However, HST servicing missions were designed around the shuttle, making it mandatory for the servicing mission and thus the entire cost is a minimum regardless of other shuttle duties.

For example, STS-61, the mission to repair the HST (plus a few other odds and ends) required one of the most complex mission profiles in history. I can't find solid figures on how much the mission cost, but I'm guessing it was on the order of around $1 billion dollars, launch costs included. I think it could be argued that such a complex mission was worth the cost in terms of maybe crew and mission planning experience, but my central argument is, in a cheap launch future, such a mission (and all servicing missions) would be entirely pointless -- which not only would be cheaper, but allow more advanced sensing packages to be put up over time with less of a risk to the lives of the astronaut crews.

Suppose Falcon-9 Heavy technology existed when the Hubble was launched. Here might be a take on an entirely different program:

1 - Separate satellites for each orthogonal sensing package. Say maybe, 1x FOC/FOS, 1x GHRS/HRS, 1x HSP, and 1x WFPC. So a constellation of 4 satellites to start with.

2 - Let's build all missions off of a single designed "things in a can" platform so we can realize cheaper costs over time. Let's assume an expected life-span of 4 years (the time between STS-61 and STS-82). So we can reduce the per device cost from $4.7 billion/per to probably something more in line with reality. Maybe $250 million/per so we can at least gold plate it a bit, but keep it within the original budget per instrument.

3 - Launch mass of the original HST was about 11.1 metric tonnes. Since we're getting rid of stuff, we can shave that down to probably <11 tonnes per satellite.

4 - A F9Heavy can shove 63,800 kg to LEO, which is about where the HST sits (with periodic reboosts during servicing missions). That means we can put the entire constellation up in one launch with room to spare.

5 - So no we're now in program year 5 and total cost (minus ground station and staff and such) is $1.09 billion. Even with a complete failure of one of the satellites, the replacement cost is $300 million ($250 for another satellite + $50 for an F9 launch). At 5 years in, with an equivalent optics failure as the HST, we're at $1.39 billion for a program of greater capability and one failed device.

6 - Over the years, the HST servicing missions added the ACS, COS, NICMOS, STIS, and the WFPC2 and WFC3 instruments. The COSTAR was never needed, and never needed to be replaced by the COS. That's two servicing missions that never had to happen at all! We've just shaved off almost another billion dollars from the program. For that cost, we can almost repeat the entire first launch and shove another 4 satellites of the the same capability in the air. So we do that and we're extend the life of the HSP and the WFPC missions beyond what actually happened and we're at a total cost of around $2.5 billion.

7 - We go ahead and do two more F9Heavy launches to clear out the mission backlog and now we have 14 satellites conducting mission, in orbit, for almost exactly the cost of just the original HST device, and no lives risked on servicing missions. With the remaining funds, we can deorbit failed satellites, engineer better/different sensing packages, and put another 14 satellites in orbit. Hell, there's enough spare launch capacity in the flight plan to put a couple JWSTs, CXOs, and roadsters up as well.

8 - We don't know what Starship launch costs might be, but they could significantly expand these kinds of mission profiles. Musk's crazy claim is $2 million per, and could shove maybe 6-8 HST-class satellites up in one go.

9 - For $2 million per launch, why the hell are we putting up $250 million dollar devices? Why not get crazy, set up an assembly line for "things in a can" space sensing devices and crank them out at $500,000 per can and radio setup with a "bring your own sensor" policy? Who the fuck cares if the STIS mission didn't pan out? Deorbit the sucker and put two more up next month!

At the scale of nation states and large corporations, it means space platforms become as disposable as they de facto actually are.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/499224main_JWST-ICRP_Report-FINAL.p...