I would also mention that things like the Voyager missions are still providing novel data ~50 years after their launch. Will the same be true of the LHC, or any other particle collider?
The HEP problems aren't going anywhere. Lets deal with more pressing concerns now and come back to HEP problems later.
This is e.g. why the current rocket companies had to do a lot of reinvention and research instead of just switching the Saturn V production line back on.
For sure, but we know we can do it because we've already done it.
Also, there are other avenues for particle physics that don't require 20 billion dollars to start with. The 20 billion isn't going to retaining particle physicists, it's mostly going to hardware, engineering construction etc. efforts.
- many interesting falsifiable theories emerge that are resolvable at the accessible energy scale.
- technology catches up to make the engineering of such a thing cheaper.
It's not a terrible idea to wait. An important part of why the LHC was more effective than the hole in texas is that chemists using NMRs and doctors using MRIs drove technical and production improvements that brought down the cost of superconducting magnets.
There is this narrative that theoretical physics drives investments in technical innovation that improves other scientists, but I'm not sure that narrative is entirely true. It's often the other way.
But apparently the only point worth making is progress in particle physics has been slow. Well, to be fair the point Hossenfelder tries to make is that there's been no progress, and since that's not actually true convincing people of it regardless takes more work.