We don't disagree. Please reread my post and notice that I said I admired much of what Musk has done. I also mentioned that he has spoken in favor of nuclear energy.
It is "hero worship," though, when people elevate other human beings to a pedestal and react emotionally when someone dares to point out ways that person could improve or, god forbid, criticizes some of the methods that he has used to achieve success.
Some here have stated that Musk did not create the subsidy programs, he just took advantage of them.
I spent nine years in Washington on a large, government enterprise staff (US Navy). I've been involved in the budget planning cycle -- we correctly referred to the process as "sausage making."
I'd be willing to bet that Musk and his employees have lobbied in favor of creating new subsidies or extending/enhancing existing ones.
It is absolutely true that major technological advances build upon prior successes and failures. Often the very best advances come by combining old approaches and seeing opportunities with a new lens based on accumulating experience.
Since Musk has a podium and an audience, wouldn't it be terrific if he discussed the well-known physical limitations of chemical rockets in terms of producing specific thrust and fuel carrying capacity that limits mission range? It'd be even better if he began talking about repurposing decades old knowledge about the way that nuclear fission powered rockets offer a way to overcome those limitations.
Due to the deadline set for a moon landing by President Kennedy, NASA logically turned away from the Rover program. It would not have produced a capable space transport system in time. However, there is little doubt that nuclear thermal rockets could have caught up to the Saturn V within a decade or so.
That technology would have then left chemical combustion rocket engines in the dust if the already tested advances had been pursued with any kind of vigor.
Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights