Satellites are usually built in pairs just in case one of them fails during launch
Not usually...at least none of the NASA or AFRL projects I'm familiar with has a full-build spare. It's not entirely uncommon to have a second of some of the instruments, and it's pretty common to have enough spare parts to build another copy of an instrument. (Much easier to buy a couple of spares up front rather than wait around if someone screws something up.) Then testing and integration can go much more quickly and cheaply, having done it once before. It still can take awhile, though.
(Incidentally, the title and summary for this article suck...the OCO didn't fail, it was lost in a launch failure, and it didn't "fail its mission," it didn't get a chance to start. That's like saying your car broke down because someone ran a red light and T-boned it. No offense intended to the launch team.)
Obviously false. The 386 wasn't available in the "early 80's." Too bad...the rest of the story was plausible; you had me until I noticed that.
(And they didn't stop production until September 2007...yikes!)
He's got three kids. Although he might be a geek, I'd call that evidence he's no longer unicorn-attractant.
Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.