The important things are not what he discusses but what he doesn't discuss. For instance, why the space program is supported instead of other initiatives in science and technology or the connection between the space program with defense and propaganda. On the other side of the coin, he doesn't address the use of foreign aid as a tool of international relations and how it destroys local markets for food production. How corruption and lack of infrastructure often thwart well-meaning programs.
He was a smart guy who could spin a good yarn and seemed to care. I sincerely doubt that he did and don't value his opinion.
You were doing pretty well there, then dove back into the ad hominem. Who he is as a person is entirely irrelevant, if you want to criticise the letter then criticise the letter, not the man.
I am talking about my emotions, yes. All I can say, if you don't like it, is that I am sorry. But I don't believe one can have an entirely objective discussion on this topic which will arrive at an incontrovertible answer. Most tech inclined people (e.g. HN readership) are positively biased towards the space program. I am not, despite the fact that I fit the profile. I think it's science done for the wrong reasons. In addition, I don't like this guy and I expect to disagree with him and I can't change that.
He was a smart guy who could spin a good yarn and seemed to care. I sincerely doubt that he did and don't value his opinion.