I'm confused by your comment for a couple reasons. 1) SpaceX doesn't have a complete super heavy lift rocket because they're still iterating the design, they s

I'm confused by your comment for a couple reasons. 1) SpaceX doesn't have a complete super heavy lift rocket because they're still iterating the design, they started later than SLS (roughly 2013 vs. 2011), they have to build their own infrastructure and deal with the FAA (NASA/contractors largely don't), and they're designing from an entirely different and likely much better long-term requirement of reusability. Cost is only a side factor if you've been tracking Starship development. 2) This SLS can't actually land on the moon. It's a to-orbit and orbital transfer platform only. 3) Given 1 and 2, it isn't at all clear that "public funds leap frog over business" or that in this case SLS somehow "paves the way for private industry". SLS is untested, horribly expensive to launch, has basically no new technology, and isn't even "done" (this is just Block 1). While I'm happy to have a second super heavy lift rock available, I and many other people strongly question if this was really the best use of the funds as opposed to using those same funds to incentivize SpaceX and its competitors to build more modern rockets free from special interests. Doing the latter seems like it would be the more efficient way to pave a path for private industry.