[handmodel]

I understand the aesthetic argument against this the most.

The weakest argument seems to be the one saying that having satellites in space will help even the smallest universities. It will probably be cheaper for ones with no/old telescopes to split time on one in space than build one from ground that can't find anything new anyway.

[thayne]

First of all, small ground telescopes, ones that are cheaper than a single sattelite launch, can still do plenty of meaningful research.

And timesharing a telescope doesn't work well for certain kinds of research. For example if you want to observe a set of object every night to watch for variability, having a ground telescope you have complete control over is probably better than trying to get the timeslot you need on a space telescope every night for however long you need.

[wumpus]

Many space telescope discoveries are followed up on with ground telescopes. Kepler and TESS planets are not confirmed until a second telescope sees the dip, and that's cheapest to do with ground telescopes.

[handmodel]

time slot could be "every moment for 200 days" or it could be "two hours every day for a year"

I'm not going to try to BS my way into pretending like I'm an expert but I do find it to be a safe bet to think that in 20 years it will not be cheaper to have the world's best telescope makers come to whatever random city you are in around the world to help you set up - instead of one amazing telescope maker making 1000 on an assembly line and firing them all off