These are all fair criticisms of SLS. Given SLS’ limitations, it will require multiple launches to get everything needed to land and return the moon mission. At the same time, the speed of SpaceX’s success wasn’t a given when SLS was initiated. I don’t think NASA/government in general has the appetite for direct risk that SpaceX represents. However, that hasn’t stopped them from hedging low-risk high-cost with generous bets on SpaceX.

Let’s say you’re a member of congress accustomed to how programs work and someone says to you, pay me to make a rocket that is totally reusable to make the moon so cheap that tons of people will do it.

For one, cheap? Full stop. In whose interest is it to make space exploration cheap? Does the government want access to space cheap enough that someone might do something destabilizing or disruptive in any way?

Ok, let’s skip past cheap and the Congress-critter looks at the shiny Starship and asks, “How much stuff can it take to the moon?” The answer is “lots if we figure out orbital rocket refueling, otherwise nothing.” To get into TLI and beyond, SpaceX or somebody needs to figure out how to do that. Sure there have been some experiments, but nothing concrete yet.

Ok, you skip past the sci-fi orbital refueling and the suited person says, “I love it and I’ll vote for it, but tell me where all is it going to be built so we now which senators will speed this along.” You say, well, design and manufacturing in CA, and a KSC processing facility, engine tests in Central TX countryside and a new space-port in Boca Chica. Response is “oh come on man—CA, FL and TX already have tons of stuff going on and their reps won’t care about something this small! We need Idaho, Missouri, Mississippi, the kinds of places where a rep will burn down their grandma’s house for a project this size. Come back when you have a real plan.”