You are getting a lot of downvotes, but I agree with you. It's true that the rocket equation is unforgiving, and it's not surprising that our early ventures into space all involved a lot of disposable hardware. But SpaceX has definitively demonstrated that reusable first stage boosters are viable from both a physics and economics point of view, and there is little that they will soon succeed in demonstrating the same for a fully-reusable orbital launch system.
In contrast, SLS is predicated on taking actual engines (and boosters) from the Space Shuttle program—ones which were once at the very forefront of reusable spacecraft technology—and trashing them. Sure: reusing the Shuttle and its boosters turned out to be much (much) less economically advantageous than hoped, and it is great that NASA eventually retired it. But the remaining Shuttle hardware is a monument to the engineering talent and production effort that produced the most sophisticated spacecraft ever flown, and to take the surviving engines, each of which has flown on multiple shuttle flights and _intentionally_ send them to a watery grave in the Pacific (Atlantic, for the booster segments) is a total travesty, and a shameful destruction of historic artefacts.
Indeed, the whole program is a boondoggle. SLS is based on the Shuttle hardware not for compelling engineering reasons so much as because it keeps the contractors that built the shuttle in business, and that keeps money flowing into the campaign funds of the politicians in Washington. Its exploration goals are laudable, but the approach taken has been fundamentally an exercise in job creation and military R&D subsidy before all else.
In contrast, SLS is predicated on taking actual engines (and boosters) from the Space Shuttle program—ones which were once at the very forefront of reusable spacecraft technology—and trashing them. Sure: reusing the Shuttle and its boosters turned out to be much (much) less economically advantageous than hoped, and it is great that NASA eventually retired it. But the remaining Shuttle hardware is a monument to the engineering talent and production effort that produced the most sophisticated spacecraft ever flown, and to take the surviving engines, each of which has flown on multiple shuttle flights and _intentionally_ send them to a watery grave in the Pacific (Atlantic, for the booster segments) is a total travesty, and a shameful destruction of historic artefacts.
Indeed, the whole program is a boondoggle. SLS is based on the Shuttle hardware not for compelling engineering reasons so much as because it keeps the contractors that built the shuttle in business, and that keeps money flowing into the campaign funds of the politicians in Washington. Its exploration goals are laudable, but the approach taken has been fundamentally an exercise in job creation and military R&D subsidy before all else.