> Hubble and Kepler and James Webb are plenty fine for me.

Those facilities have resulted in lots of discoveries. But Kepler wouldn't have been such a success without lots of follow-up observations from ground-based telescopes (e.g., measuring spectroscopic radial velocities to confirm exoplanets). It's likely that many HST (and eventually JWST) studies rely or will rely on data taken with ground based facilities in order to actually interpret the data. Pardon the pun, but space based telescopes don't exist in a (scientific) vacuum. They have unique and impressive capabilities, but they don't stand alone.