I saw the accepted answer, stating it would be a 1900s tech level, and I disagree. I mean, 200k people is nothing to scoff at.
For one thing, the science itself should not be lost. There will be many electronic records, and there should be paper versions, in case the electronic devices fail in some way. The settlers might not focus on education at the very start, focusing on immediate survival instead, but once they have a basic living established, if they wish any kind of long term survival, they WILL train new people to keep sustainability.
So, they would likely not make many great discoveries, but they should have at least a few specialists in every domain, able to at least understand the established science base.
As for production, hand labor isn't very effective, and would obviously severely limit what can be done - but that's exactly why setting up an industrial core would be a high priority.
Industry needs power. So, one of the first things would be to set up a power station, along with rudimentary resource extraction. That power station would probably be using renewable energy (probably hydraulic, or wind-based), unless some better energy source is located (volcano for geothermal, or a nice oil patch to dig a well and start polluting anew, for instance).
Industry needs resources. The problem, here, will probably mostly be around accessing resources, more than exploiting them. But, if the resources do exist, then there are ways to create small-scale exploitation facilities, which should produce enough to create better tools, and with that, scale the production up.
So, yeah, obviously, at the very start, manual extraction won't be that efficient, but the efficiency should rise exponentially, as long as the production serves to improve the industrial base (create better tools, machines, and the like. Even building a small excavator, for instance, would allow replacing several worker's worth of manpower in a mine, building better foundries should help with metallurgy, etc.)
As long as the preparation was done properly, small high-tech tools and spare parts to keep them working for a reasonable time should be available from the start. Which means having the means to duplicate them, as long as the materials needed are available.
Keeping the population alive would probably be the highest priority, but keeping the industrial base, and the knowledge level, would be very close seconds. Possibly even to the point of being ready to sacrifice a few lives if it means keeping the ever so precious machines, or knowledge. Imagine lava flows and WILL engulf either the Central Library, where you store rare science and technology books which you have (no/no longer/not yet) copies of, or a small hospital ward with 20 or so wounded workers, which you cannot evacuate at the time. Would you sacrifice the knowledge, leading to a very hard loss for the whole community, or some people, so that the community can thrive ?
So, keeping that priority level in mind, it's not that hard to think that crude but efficient machines could be built quite quickly in order to get that industrial base going. Of course, agriculture would be a severe limiter at start, because it would tie a lot of the workforce, in order for the population not to starve. But, even so, even thinking (conservatively) that about 80% of the workforce has to keep farming at start, because of low productivity, that would let 20%, which would still mean 40k people, work on industry. Which is nothing to scoff at. I suppose that the new settlers would be YOUNG, educated people, with maybe some older (but not eldery) people, for their experience. So, all in all, the whole population should be of working age, with no children to take care of in the first year(s). After all, the first priority would not be to "pop out" a lot of babies, but to build something sustainable ASAP, and only then think about adding new mouths to the equation.
Infrastructure, too, would be needed, but that doesn't require a high tech level, or high means (except for tunnels and bridges - or, at least, some versions of them) - merely a lot of manpower. However, the benefits would be quite evident, too, meaning less effort for better returns later on.
So, considering "ideal" conditions (that is, there are deposits of everything that is needed), I'm pretty sure a (very) basic industry of just about everything could be established in the course of a few years, with a modern tech level. Maybe not with our miniaturization standards, but that's not needed at the beginning. And obviously, not with any kind of large scale at first. But, then again, scale isn't that important here - what is important is to be able to build what you need, even if it takes time.
Because once you are able to replicate tech, you are able to scale your operations up. Need more materials ? Just build things which will improve materials production. Materials keep piling up, but you cannot process them fast enough ? Build more of that, then. One more machine, one more furnace, whatever. Etc, build what you need most urgently, so that you improve the efficiency.
Then once you have the means to improve agriculture (and it's not that hard to do, once you have workable fields - even without synthesizing chemical fertilizers, herbicids, or pesticids), you'll be able to move more people from farming to industry, thus getting more and more production, and thus, improving your industry again.
If the conditions are NOT ideal, however, resource shortage could hamper whole parts of the industry. I mean, if you do NOT have copper, for instance, it becomes harder to do some things. Sure, you could make electric wires out of many other metals (or even use carbon, for instance), but the applications wouldn't be the same. Without natural oil, you could create bio-plastics instead, or burn vegetable oil. But that would put a much higher strain on your farming. Without rare earths, electronics will need replacement products, or will have to develop brand new techniques to circumvent the problem. And THAT would be the real hurdle.
Because what limited the industry development during the 20th century was mostly knowledge. It's easy, if you have early 20-th century means of production, to create 1930s tech, for instance. And with it, to create 1940s tech, leading to 1950 tech, and so on. But it's only easy to do if you know how to do it with the materials you can procure. So, if you have the know-how and the resources, you can upgrade rather quickly. If you do not have that, then you need to research new ways of doing things. And that's what takes time, people dedicated to finding these solutions, and also a bit of luck (where a large population helps, because it increases the odds of a researcher getting lucky enough to find a solution).
So, to summarize: With resource abundance, it shouldn't be hard to keep our current tech level. I don't mean that everybody would have consumer goods in a few years, because resources would have to go to improving the industry (and food production, which is also an industry) first. But still, the capability for creating such things would not be lost, it's just that the scale would have to be expanded first in order to be able to "waste" production on things like music players, or personal entertainment, when there are way more urgent things to produce.
Without resource abundance, it is possible to get "stuck" at earlier tech levels. For instance, if you can't create an electric grid, you can still power small workshops with compressed air, or with axles, belts, whatever, from, say, a steam engine. Or a simple water wheel. But, obviously, you'll have a hard time getting modern things to work...