Remi
The problem is that there is precious little 'new' technology being funded by NASA in the last couple of decades - and almost no new technology for the SLS. In fact, SLS was sold as leveraging 'existing technologies as quick and cost effective (0 for 2, since it's been neither). SLS uses the same liquid fuel engines as the Space Shuttle, and the solid fuel strap-ons are simply longer versions of the Space Shuttle solid boosters. During 1960's and 1970's and into the 1980s, NASA spending was contributing greatly to the overall technology base of the USA - developing Apollo, the Saturn V, and the Space Shuttle literally meant developing the technology from scratch. SLS is simply repurposing technology that already exists (and not doing it very well at that - actually moving away from useable and back to single use components).
NASA has had some positive effects in their unmanned programs (Webb telescope and some interplanetary missions, for example), but SLS has been nothing but a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle.
IF we want to continue the mission of NASA as a technology development tool, it should be to develop new, cost effective technology and platforms to place payloads into space safely and at low cost. Perhaps a 21st century reuseable space shuttle type platform - incorporating all the lessons learned from 30 years of experience with the original Space Shuttle. SLS simply spends tax money, costing more per pound of payload into orbit than the original Saturn V, using largely the same technology.