I don't know if we are talking past eachother, or you are proving my points here? NASA would be nowhere without spaceX. In a centralized system, they never would have developed reusability, because economics are not a consideration. And when you try and produce an end good where economics are not part of the consideration, even with success, you achieve failure.
If SpaceX was nationalized, Starship development would of never happened. Catching the boosters with giant chopsticks, would have never happened. We would probably spend $100B to get to a human to mars and we'd say "Done". However, keeping a profit incentive ensure proper allocation of resources and goals with economic fucundity instead of dumping 60 years to build a death trap with no meaningful payload capacity to the moon. SpaceX has only 20 years, and has rapidly advanced past any agency or company on the planet. SpaceX has the capacity and access that Governments wish they could create, but inside a government system the incintives can never exist to create those in the first place.
edit: Those three links you provided... The last one, a "Calmer work enviroment" because His [Elons] demands have sometimes led to staff reworking the product again for its functionality."
Don't you think these articles kinda of disprove your original statement that he's not intimately involved in the design details? Yes, definitely Elon is not known to be subtle with his employees and he definitely yells alot I can tell you that from first hand experience. Shotwell is definitely the more level headed of the two, with a much higher EQ, so of course, when Elon comes in and fires the entire Starlink team, comes in and redesigns it from scratch, she picks up the pieces of those in his way. At Tesla, however, there is no equivelent to shotwell.
> In a centralized system, they never would have developed reusability, because economics are not a consideration. And when you try and produce an end good where economics are not part of the consideration, even with success, you achieve failure.
You'd need evidence for this claim, because it's evidently false given the nationalized space program of the soviet union and the nationalized HSR program of the PRC both had cost optimizations built in. Also, the Soviet Union's wasn't entirely centralized, different design departments competed.
> they never would have developed reusability,
Space shuttle.
> However, keeping a profit incentive ensure proper allocation of resources and goals with economic fucundity
What's the profit incentive of a nuclear weapons program? Access to space is an assurance of sovereignty. There's no room for inefficient resource allocation mechanisms like profit incentive. See: Ukraine losing starlink internet because it made Elon mad somehow. In Taiwan we saw the writing on the wall for this when the digital minister briefly flirted with Starlink, which is why seeking a private option for non-submarine cable internet was abandoned in favor of investigating a nationalized one.