As LocalFluff suggested, total project costs should be taken into consideration. Indeed, the only reason why Hubble is inexpensive, these days, is because there is no expenditure on future Space Shuttle maintenance missions. Those were fairly expensive missions, every three or four years, but they improved the telescope and extended its mission. With luck, we will be able to perform future maintenance missions and further improve and extend Hubble. Perhaps crewed Dragon or Starliner will be hired for such a mission in the next few years.

I believe that a variety of instruments help to perform the variety of observations that we need in order to understand the universe. I’m not sure how much more SOFIA costs than other modern telescopes, such as TMT.

Robert said; “In fact, there is much about this story that makes me suspicious that it is being pushed for budget reasons.”
Now I think I understand what Bill Nye the pretend to know science guy meant when he said in his interview on NPR that “all science is political, but it is not partisan.”
When seen in the light of funding, his words are true. Take the money and promise that you can make it rain. You know that sooner or later, it will rain. And then you can take credit and get more funding…
That coming from the mouth of a person who is highly partisan, it’s affect falls flat. I just have to remind myself he’s just an actor who pretends to be a scientist on TV.

SOPHIA’s budget of $0.085 billion per year is just 1% of the total cost for the infrared JWST.

Edward: Just because this telescope contributed to this most recent study does not necessarily prove that the budget cuts proposed three years ago were wrong. In fact, there is much about this story that makes me suspicious that it is being pushed for budget reasons. In fact, if this is all that SOFIA has accomplished than it certainly is not worth the money.