Winnie, that does sound like it might become quite popular. Given how static it will be, you might want to consider deploying it as a true static site, which will remove PHP and the WordPress database from the equation, making the site much more performant. We currently deploy a few static sites this way via Amazon S3, those can handle a huge load. The other huge advantage of a truly static site is that it is much harder for bad actors to attack (there is nothing to "log in" to, no CMS).
We use Jekyll to deploy these static sites, but there are also tools that turn simple WP sites into static sites for deployment. A quick Google hunt turns up, for example, Simply Static
. A search for "static wordpress" would turn up many other ideas.
A static website could also be run from many other hosts besides S3. The good news is that static sites are so simple they can perform well in many settings.