> and very likely would still be if he wasn't associated with them

Not a chance. It would be worthwhile to read a biography of Musk.

He is the main decision maker after all, and hires the other major ones, and exercises veto power. Is the success of the company really independent of those choices?

He certainly had an impact on Tesla's supercharger team. I know it goes against the prevailing mythology in the US of great men and visionary leaders but sometimes success or failure have more to do with the market and time. He did recruit a spectacular team for early SpaceX. For all I know he may have had some extraordinary talent for hiring or it might have been luck and a target rich environment. Either way the success of SpaceX was very real and greatly contributed to the mythos surrounding Musk.

> SpaceX are undeniably a world leading aerospace engineering company and very likely would still be if he wasn't associated with them in my opinion.

How much has Blue Origin put into orbit? They've had as much money and more time than SpaceX, but aren't lead by Elon Musk, and how do they compare today?

Blue Origin have been consistently disappointing. The leadership of Bezos and Bob Smith had a lot to do with their lack of achievement but that might change with Smith gone though they are still persisting with the stupid sub-orbital joy rides which will never be wildly profitable or lead to other things. BE-4 production still seems very slow which hasn't been good for ULA but there is at least signs of movement with New Glenn with a launch scheduled this year.

I do read books and I acknowledge Musk was a bit more than just the money man in early SpaceX. Perhaps I am too cynical but I think many people are prone to cults of personality and over-estimating the impact of individuals. SpaceX is well beyond being a founder's plaything. If they were truly dependent on Musk's micro-management they would have a very serious bus problem for an organization of their size and importance.