And the reason we as a society aren't doing this already is what? This thing should be consuming a percent of two of US GDP until it's done.
Because you have to park it 900AU away from the sun (Voyager 1 is at 147AU after 40 years and not in a solar orbit) and it has to have a special kind of coronagraph that flies as a separate spacecraft from the telescope (hasn't been invented yet) and your telescope is limited to looking at objects directly opposite the star from the orbit of the spacecraft. At 900AU it would take decades to slew such a telescope to view a new object in the sky.
At the current time this is basically a science fiction project that promises that if we put a very special spacecraft in a very specific place then it is within our technological capability to image an exoplanet. That doesn't mean it's even a remotely practical idea. It's interesting to talk about but useless to get all worked up about why it's not getting funded.
This is one of the reasons for papers such as this one: exploring what meaningful solutions to these problems, and meaningful mission profiles, would actually look like in practice.
I'd hope less of a risk of micrometeorites (though it would have to look on its own for incoming projectiles and take evasive action). Then again, 900 AU is in the middle of the Oort Cloud so perhaps there's a lot of small junk out there too.
So just bring 50% more? I don't think the weight of the Pu-238 is a key limiting factor on this mission.
That kind of difference might be visible through one of these telescopes, especially if the border is long.
Though I've heard this is actually overstated.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/26/282909885...
https://www.businessinsider.com/divide-between-west-east-ber...