For deep space missions beyond Earth orbit, yes... NASA has a unique skill set and facilities that should be leveraged for training of astronauts and mission support for that role-- it's called Johnson Space Center 70 miles from my back door. That's JSC's main mission as the former "Manned Spacecraft Center" as it was called before being renamed for Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The Air Force (or Space Force) has no realistic need for astronauts now or for the foreseeable future, so it would be illogical for either to be retasked with training astronauts instead of NASA JSC.

NASA has already given up launch capabilities due to lack of funding-- they've leased Pad 39A to SpaceX for at least the next decade or two, probably "in perpetuity". SpaceX has built an enormous hangar for the integration and prelaunch testing of Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 rockets as part of their Commercial Crew contract with NASA. Their hangar building is built astride of the crawlerway that used to support the massive crawler transporter carrying the launch umbilical towers and Saturn V rockets (as well as Saturn IB's on the milkstool for the Skylab and ASTP missions) and the launch platforms and shuttles to Pad 39-A for launch during the shuttle era. I toured 39A in 2013 about the time all the contracts had just been signed or were in process, and 39B was already being razed for SLS. 39A is no longer capable of launching SLS or anything else NASA might come up with, unless they bought out the SpaceX contract and demolished their hangar blocking the crawlerway from the VAB, as there is no way for a vehicle to be moved from the VAB to the 39A pad WITHOUT demolishing the SpaceX facility. SO as far as NASA is concerned, 39A basically no longer exists. NASA now has ONE PAD at Kennedy Space Center available for SLS or anything else they come up with-- 39B. NASA did all this because they basically didn't have the funding to even renovate and modify both pads for Ares I/V and later SLS use, due to inadequate funding. NASA leased 39A for commercial crew to generate money to help renovate the 39B pad and VAB, crawlerways, etc. NASA had wasted a HUGE amount of money in building a new launch platform for Ares I (which was subsequently canceled) and then redesigning the thing for use by SLS. At one point the old Saturn LUT's, which had been heavily modified into the towers at 39A and B for use by the shuttle, and the old crawler platforms that the towers and Saturn V's sat on were heavily modified for use by the shuttles (the towers had to be removed from the LUT's to the Pads, because 1) the shuttle stack was simply TOO HEAVY with the platform and the heavy SRB's which must be moved fully fueled for the crawler transporter to move to the pad with the heavy steel towers on the platforms as well-- hence the towers were removed and relocated permanently to the pads, and 2) the Rotating Service Structure (RSS) towers with their vertical payload integration rooms that swung around and cocooned the shuttle orbiter for the installation and servicing of the shuttle payloads on the pad pivoted around the Fixed Service Structure (FSS-- the modified old Saturn V towers relocated to the pad) to provide the connection points to the ground support equipment and systems. The 39B pad was razed completely for SLS; I don't know what's replaced it there... IIRC they were going for a "clean pad" approach with a minimalist tower on the LUT platform again similar to how it was done for Saturn V, only it HAS to be lighter due to the enormous weight of the five segment SRB's on SLS, since SRB's MUST of necessity be moved fully fueled. Saturn V, despite its enormous proportions, was an actual lightweight for the crawler to move compared to shuttle or SLS, due to the fact that the Saturn V, being liquid fueled, was moved EMPTY of propellants and thus was essentially "full of air" and therefore weighed much less.

That's why the idea of SLS being a "Mars rocket" is laughable... by NASA's own DRM (design reference mission) plans, a Mars mission using their architecture and mission mode will require 6-8 launches to assemble the outgoing Mars vehicle in orbit and fuel it, and launch the payload and crew to it. Now, SLS is designed to fly *AT MOST ONCE EVERY OTHER YEAR*, with as much as one flight every 3 years being quite within the realm of possibilities.... A little simple math shows it would take a MINIMUM OF TWELVE YEARS for six flights occurring every other year to be launched from Pad 39B using SLS to assemble a Mars-bound spacecraft in orbit and fuel and equip it with the necessary supplies, propellant, and crew. Even if some of those flights are "auctioned off" to other service providers (like SpaceX for crew launch or for propellant or cargo deliveries (like foodstuffs and other expendable cargo to be used in the mission then it's STILL a DECADE of launch and on-orbit assembly and supply deliveries before a Mars bound spacecraft would be ready to depart Earth orbit for Mars... and possibly with NASA doing *everything* (which is their desired goal and aim) with a 3 year interval between launches, for 8 launches 3 years apart would take *TWENTY-FOUR YEARS* to assemble an outbound Mars spacecraft in orbit and send it on its way... Granted that's surely a "worst case scenario" but it DOES show how completely unrealistic NASA's "SLS/Orion" Mars plans truly are... 12 years just to assemble the spacecraft in orbit is simply ridiculous-- in the 12 years between Kennedy's "Moon speech" at Rice University inaugurating the Apollo program in 1961 and 1973, NASA built not only the entire Saturn I/IB/V rocket programs, but also the Apollo and LM, conducted numerous manned Earth orbital flights with Saturn IB and V, in Apollo 7 and 9, and the three manned Skylab flights, as well as had the finished hardware for the last Apollo flight on Saturn IB, the Apollo Soyuz Test Project in 1975... but they'd also completed the manned lunar exploration program with 9 flights to the Moon on Apollos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, as well as a tenth Saturn V flight to launch the Skylab space station, not including the Saturn I and IB test flights of vehicles and hardware both manned and unmanned in the entire Saturn I series, Apollo 5's unmanned LM test, and 2 Saturn V test launches on Apollos 4 and 6. Skylab was winding down 12 years after Kennedy's speech. NOW the best NASA can manage is taking TWELVE YEARS to launch a half-dozen vehicles to assemble a Mars-bound spacecraft in orbit, let alone the next 2-3 years required to actually fly the mission to Mars and back... AND to do this while simultaneously supporting a "return to the Moon to stay" program at the same time, or at the very least longer-surface stay lunar exploration relying by NASA's insistence on SLS/Orion for the launch vehicle and spacecraft?? TOTALLY UNREALISTIC. It couldn't happen EVEN IF THEY WANTED IT TO! Even if money were no object, and SLS didn't cost a BILLION DOLLARS just for the rocket and launch, not including mission or payload costs... It's simply unsupportable with the available infrastructure... let alone FUNDING...

That's why I have ZERO faith in SLS being anything beyond a big gubmint jobs program, a bone thrown to the "shuttle mafia" contractors and their lobbyists and the space state politicians more concerned about "bringing home the bacon" to their constituents than actually achieving anything in space... and NASA is perfectly content with that-- after all, if you're not launching anything, you're not potentially blowing up astronauts... Later! OL J R

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!