That's literally what he is doing, isn't it?
He thought something was off, and instead of spewing his opinion all over the place he requested information from folks more versed in the domain than him. He is literally being curious, not judgemental.
> I'm always baffled how everyone seems proud that the telescope has something like 200 SPOF during deployment, and if even one of them fails the whole mission could fail
It expresses an opinion, but I don’t think that has to be judgmental. The OP has to explain their position in order to ask for additional information.
I'd like to apologize if this sounded judgmental. English is not my main language, and perhaps my phrasing sounded like I assumed my domain specific opinion is better than the actual people working on the the project.
Reading the other comments, and maybe to contextualize to my question better, I'm more surprised by how the project is presented as marvelous to the public, rather than thinking that any technical part were overlooked.
While I'm sure that engineering teams at NASA and ESA have countless contingency plans, procedures and failure models. Medias around the project seem to focus on how fragile the deployment procedure is. Great engineering is an act of finding the best balance between opposing constrains, by building technically sound systems but also more importantly designing robust human or automated procedures.
In this story, in my opinion, the media presents a skewed explanation of why the project is incredible by highlighting that it would be incredible that such a brittle deployment procedure would even work.