I take your point about cult-of-personality, and agree that it's something to be on guard against.
Musk is not Buckaroo Banzai. He's not the rocket scientist that's inventing a revolutionary technology before he brushes his teeth in the morning. It's true that he's got the opportunity to stand on other people's shoulders, both technically and logistically (e.g., the use of NASA's tracking stations).
But I think that in your caution, you're taking away too much credit. The reason that SpaceX has been so successful is because they are able to take those ideas that were already out there, and bring them to fruition. NASA has not been able to do so, whether that's because of politics, bureacracy, inertia of decades of tradition, or a culture that's too risk-averse.
And that's the whole point: NASA hasn't been able to do these things, despite government funding (i.e., no investors to report to), and over the decades, every bit as many starry-eyed fanboys as follow Musk. NASA has boatloads of brilliant people, but SpaceX has (or seems to have) what's needed to turn the brilliant technical ideas into something real.
IMHO, this isn't something absolutely unique to Musk; it's more a liability in NASA's balance sheet. Their dependence on governmental funding, and thus the whims and nepotism of politics, prevent real success. SpaceX isn't the only entrepreneurial space company, and I believe that at least some of those others will find success as well, since they're also free of NASA's liabilities.
Musk is not Buckaroo Banzai. He's not the rocket scientist that's inventing a revolutionary technology before he brushes his teeth in the morning. It's true that he's got the opportunity to stand on other people's shoulders, both technically and logistically (e.g., the use of NASA's tracking stations).
But I think that in your caution, you're taking away too much credit. The reason that SpaceX has been so successful is because they are able to take those ideas that were already out there, and bring them to fruition. NASA has not been able to do so, whether that's because of politics, bureacracy, inertia of decades of tradition, or a culture that's too risk-averse.
And that's the whole point: NASA hasn't been able to do these things, despite government funding (i.e., no investors to report to), and over the decades, every bit as many starry-eyed fanboys as follow Musk. NASA has boatloads of brilliant people, but SpaceX has (or seems to have) what's needed to turn the brilliant technical ideas into something real.
IMHO, this isn't something absolutely unique to Musk; it's more a liability in NASA's balance sheet. Their dependence on governmental funding, and thus the whims and nepotism of politics, prevent real success. SpaceX isn't the only entrepreneurial space company, and I believe that at least some of those others will find success as well, since they're also free of NASA's liabilities.