In case that all seemed too pro-SpaceX:

1) I think NASA does best when it focuses on the frontier of space, where private industry does not yet have the incentives or capabilities to increase our knowledge and access to space and solar system resources.

2) I think NASA does best, when it takes the greatest advantage of private industry, where ever industry is able to provide lower costs or higher performance.

I think this is more in line with how public money should be spent.

I think it reduces a lot of wasted money spent on unnecessary redundant and obsolete efforts.

I think it results in the greatest bang for the buck, for the government, and the greatest incentive to improve for industry.

At this time, I think the frontier NASA should be focused on (where industry is not yet incentivized enough), is manned space habitats, and unmanned and manned exploration of the solar system's potential manned sites and resources.

Where I think it should have already passed on the torch, is manned and unmanned orbital, lunar and solar system launch capabilities. Industry is already performing and incentivized to provide these capabilities better than NASA. NASA can best contribute to improving those capabilities, with the least investment, by being a demanding customer.

SpaceX happens to have put itself in the center of those principles, due to a lot of fine work. But the principles make just as good sense, regardless of who the industrial innovators are.

If we actually funded public services to the required levels NASA and so forth would be fine to do things in house. We're just allergic to anything that makes actual sense when we have an oligarchy to support. That's it.

NASA hasn’t run its own rockets for a long time, it is a customer, it chooses the launch vehicle based on the mission requirements.