BEfore we wet our pants in excitement, let's remember:
* The Hubble passed a slew of design reviews too.
* Even so, it went up with many, many flaws, including:
* Electronics not shielded well enough to handle the South Atlantic Anomaly.
* Gyroscopes not qualified for the temperature cycles and SAA.
* Solar panels that oilcan buckle when going from sunlight to shade.
* Solar panel mount that does not go through the center of mass of the scope, so oilcan buckling causes the whole thing to oscillate.
* Unbalanced and uncushioned light cap that likewise shakes the whole thing when it's operated.
Although the new scope will have been checked against that list of problems, without major overhaul of the management structure, it's likely the same thing will happen this time.
Granted Hubble had many problems when it launched mainly because it was one of the first and most advanced general purpose observatories launched.
We have had tons of experience building space telescopes over the past 30 years since Hubble was designed and Hubble is the only one that is serviceable by the shuttle.
Just to list all the successful observatories since Hubble:
Infrared Space Observatory (Europe)
Chandra X-Ray observatory
Spitzer Space Telescope
WMAP
FUSE
Herschel Space Observatory (Mostly Europe)
Planck (Europe)
Suzaku X-Ray observatory (Japan)
and probably a few others I forgot about.
Bottom line, we know a lot about building space telescopes now, the doom and gloom you forecast is probably a bit over the top. Every project has problems, that's why we have brilliant engineers to find solutions.