Some background for those who have not followed this topic.
Why the SLS?
If you deem going back to the moon as unimportant, waste of money etc. Then, if that sentiment were to prevail, the Moon would belong to the Chinese.
If you are fine with that outcome, then you will be fine with living in a country whose currency is worthless as BRICS currency, the Yuan, would superseded the dollar.
NASA’s SLS is a single shot direct to the moon, whereas SpaceX’s path will be multi-rocket.
Starship, version 3 as it is envisioned, will take about 15 trips each way via refueling stops. SpaceX will have to launch 30 refueling ships, and each stop will take time, and everything must go according to plan. If not, the whole thing collapses, until another refueling ship can be launched and reach the stricken ship.
Why if Starship is bigger and more powerful than SLS does it need to refuel? Because weight.
SLS is a a lightweight carbon composite; Starship is stainless steel. Stainless steel is not light. Weight and mass are the determining factors in rocketry. The more a rocket weighs, the more fuel it takes to get to a given place; the more the rocket masses, the more fuel it takes. In this case, mass is not the problem, but weight is.
Because of political factors (Musk hate, rival jealousy, environmentalists), the Starship is far behind schedule. SLS will only be launched, if everything is perfect. Starship is different, using the ‘test to failure model’. The SLS method takes longer and costs far more money. The Starship is quicker & with its reusable booster is far cheaper, but is prone to spectacular failures.
In this case, going back to the moon, using NASA’s plan, requires both the SLS and the Starship to be perfected. The initial date has been set back several times - and right now its is looking like the Chinese will get there before the USA or be right behind.