Pyromancer said:
Standard designs aren't cheaper because they are cheaper to actually build, they are cheaper because you don't have to pay a huge team of highly qualified engineers to draw up the plans. That's even spelled out in some version of the rules, and it makes perfect sense to me.
. . .
Exactly. I think Boeing spent something like five billion dollars designing the latest version of the 737, and that's an adaptation of their best-selling airplane going back decades. Yet they sell for a few tens of millions each. If they sell a thousand of the new version, that's five million each in amortized design cost, on top of whatever it costs to
build them.
Although high-technology design tools reduce design and development costs somewhat, engineers (in the design sense, as opposed to the shipboard job category) are educated professionals who will always be expensive, particularly compared to manufacturing that's heavily automated.
The economic law known as Baumol's cost disease says that as technology, people like design engineers, software developers, teachers, medical professionals, and (per the original formulation of Baumol's) live performance musicians will all become more expensive to employ relative to manufactured goods, because robots are cheap.
Taken to the extreme, at a
Star Trek level of technology, almost all of the cost of the
Enterprise would be design. Repairs would become extremely expensive, to the point that if the ship is significantly damaged, the best thing to do is repair it just enough to return to the shipyard, and if the damage is more than minimal, just build a new one and have everyone move their personal effects from the old ship to the duplicate.