At the very least, Artemis is a functional space launch system with exceptional reliability and predictability despite its insane costs. The wasted billions are an embarrassment, but far less so now that we know a) the thing works, and works pretty darned well and b) it is, for now, the only game in town in its class.
Starship is an interesting project with a lot of ambitious goals, but it is far behind schedule in terms of development and the Raptors are suffering from a lot of issues that Merlins didn't have due to SpaceX's inexperience with cryogenic fuels.
So the question to be asked is: do we want an pricey but reliable and proven solution now, or do we hold out for years in the promise of some intangible futurist idea that will likely take far longer than anticipated to become a viable solution for crewed travel? If your answer is B, then it's fairly obvious you're less interested in the rapid progression of space travel writ large and more interested in ensuring a project you favor wins out.
In a perfect world, SLS would be a rapidly reusable rocket with 5 RS-25s, an inflatable heatshield, F-1 derived liquid boosters, and landing legs. But that's not the world we live in, and something > nothing, in my opinion. And I also find it important to put the price of SLS/Artemis in context to other far more wasteful government projects that produce no surplus economic value for people, like the F-35 program or the B-21 (questionable benefit over existing defense systems). In that context, SLS is almost utilitarian, providing valuable scientific jobs to engineers and scientists, while propelling the way to the Moon for this generation's astronauts and explorers.
Exceptional reliability? How can you possibly claim that? Reliability comes from working out all the unknown unknowns, and that comes only from experience.
Starship is not needed to condemn SLS. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are sufficient to render SLS uncompetitive and unneeded.
In a perfect world, SLS would have had a stake driven through its corrupt programmatic heart years ago.
In a perfect (space policy) world, SLS wouldn't have had major components determined by the legislature. It's extremely expensive because that's what the legislature asked for, a single use rocket built using super expensive engines designed for a reusable rocket.
SLS scrubbed numerous launches for random failures. The final actual launch was performed only after a team of technicians worked on a problem in strict violation of safety procedures, waived for the occasion.
The only way to measure reliability is experience, and there has been exactly one (1) launch. It will take another 20 to get a good reliability figure, and we won't get that: we cannot afford to ever launch that many.
Weird take since NASA's Artemis page on landing humans on the Moon opens with a giant rendering of Starship on the Moon[1] and their plan[2] for getting to the Moon involves ~6-8 Starship launches plus orbital refueling against 1 SLS launch. So NASA's Artemis program leadership doesn't seem to assess that Starship is "some intangible futurist idea" that won't work anytime soon due to engines/fuel/etc.
The thing for me is that we (humanity that is) already know how to safely land a rocket booster and reuse it. SLS has been in development for quite a while, and lots of funding. So why aren't recovering the boosters part of the program? The most likely answer is that no one on the funding / direction side thought it was worth while, or possible, at a time when that could be engineered into the system. The cynic in me feels that there is more profit to be made in throwing away the boosters. I wonder if the true answer is somewhere in between?
The purpose of SLS was to funnel money to particular contractors and facilities. It's not just that there's more money to be made by inefficiency; it's that the entire purpose of SLS is inefficiency. That it might achieve anything in space is entirely beside the point.
SLS was also even further behind in development that Starship is... it was supposed to fly before Falcon Heavy. Also the next SLS flight isn't now, but more like 2 years from now... Starship might very well by flying by then(it better be given that NASA plans to use it as the lander).
Not sure where you got the idea F-35/B-21 are questionable benefit over existing systems from(we don't know enough about B-21 to say this, and F-35 seems to have proven itself by now).
Starship is an interesting project with a lot of ambitious goals, but it is far behind schedule in terms of development and the Raptors are suffering from a lot of issues that Merlins didn't have due to SpaceX's inexperience with cryogenic fuels.
So the question to be asked is: do we want an pricey but reliable and proven solution now, or do we hold out for years in the promise of some intangible futurist idea that will likely take far longer than anticipated to become a viable solution for crewed travel? If your answer is B, then it's fairly obvious you're less interested in the rapid progression of space travel writ large and more interested in ensuring a project you favor wins out.
In a perfect world, SLS would be a rapidly reusable rocket with 5 RS-25s, an inflatable heatshield, F-1 derived liquid boosters, and landing legs. But that's not the world we live in, and something > nothing, in my opinion. And I also find it important to put the price of SLS/Artemis in context to other far more wasteful government projects that produce no surplus economic value for people, like the F-35 program or the B-21 (questionable benefit over existing defense systems). In that context, SLS is almost utilitarian, providing valuable scientific jobs to engineers and scientists, while propelling the way to the Moon for this generation's astronauts and explorers.