My pride is not boosted by SLS. I think the only thing it serves to demonstrate to other countries is an inability to execute.
The common sense question has always bothered me too.
1. SpaceX launches a Starship into LEO to perform the role of a fuel depot.
2. SpaceX launches multiple Starships into LEO to rendezvous with and fill the fuel depot with fuel.
3. SpaceX launches an HLS version of Starship into lunar NRHO
4. NASA launches SLS/Orion into lunar NRHO to rendezvous with HLS
5. HLS lands on moon, then launches backing lunar NRHO to rendezvous with Orion
6. Orion returns to Earth and conducts re-entry.
7. HLS remains in lunar NRHO and may or may not be useful for a later mission.
Now, the advantage of the above is that HLS doesn't need to ever conduct an atmospheric re-entry, so it doesn't need a heat shield.
Is that the only advantage for HLS?
We could achieve all of the above but do the crew transfer in Earth LEO instead of Lunar NRHO (both directions). What would change?
1. Orion would only need a smaller booster which is LEO capable.
2. HLS would need additional life support for a few more days.
3. HLS would need additional fuel for a transfer back from lunar NRHO back to LEO.
4. HLS would now be back in LEO in a more useful location for re-use for a later mission.
5. Optional: The crew could launch from Earth in the HLS instead of Orion, reducing the number of crew transfers from 2 to 1. Orion merely serves as a re-entry vehicle.
This would reduce NASA's contribution and increase SpaceX's contribution, but would seem to make more sense considering the cost of SLS.
National pride could be one reason why they would seemingly go down the path of less efficiency?