> The cost of hardening electronics and shielding is also not going away even if launch costs were non-existent. Of course, but what about hardened electronics

> The cost of hardening electronics and shielding is also not going away even if launch costs were non-existent. Of course, but what about hardened electronics exempts it from the principles I discussed with scientific instruments in general? > the cost will still be orders of magnitude higher than comparable commodity options. Irrelevant, no one is comparing the cost to commodity hardware, we are comparing it to what the cost would be if we don't increase the number of scientific missions and continue with the current demand. > in order to get RTGs you need to build, maintain and operate an entire specialized nuclear facility. Yes, needing more material is going to cost more money, but does the cost per unit stay the same or go up the more you buy? We are going to need to increase production Pu used in RTGs anyways, if we are going to build facilities to might as well utilize them to the max. > How exactly would a cheaper launch cost solve the problem of a Venus sample-return mission? There will be unique engineering challenges that require unique solutions, but engineers will have a large shelf of parts to choose from if they have a specific issue they don't have to invent the wheel for. > that cost is also unrelated to launch costs That one is true. Missions that involve complex maneuvers, landings, driving rovers, etc, will require large amounts of staff and engineers. Other missions that don't involve those things could utilize a shared staff, so something like a general purpose probe network taking measurements across the solar system. Fleet management tools, policy, and procedures need to be developed so we can manage assets like we do with other LEO constellations.