He makes no secret of his current views that the space agency is on the wrong track by continuing to put so much of its scarce resources into the Space Launch System rocket and the Orion capsule after so many years of delays — and when new and cheaper commercial alternatives are so promising.

“People have fallen in love with them but they got old and expensive, and I think they're more worried about keeping some of the aerospace companies in fit shape than the American taxpayer,” he complains.

Gibson supports returning astronauts to the moon, but he's also among the vocal group of space insiders who contend that building a lunar Space Station first will just slow things down.

Nor is he convinced that extending NASA’s primary role in running the International Space Station makes sense, given all the other competing goals.

Gibson sat down with POLITICO last weekend on the sidelines of Space Vision 2019, hosted by Students for the Exploration and Development of Space at Arizona State University.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

You were among the first astronauts who were scientists and not military pilots.

The test pilots thought they were going to rule the world forever. Congress said, 'You’ve got to get some science in the program, and the way to do that is get some who have science backgrounds to go flying in space.'

So, begrudgingly NASA did that, and I think the test pilots in the program said, 'All right, bring them in here. They'll quit, flunk out, or kill themselves. And we won't have to deal with them again.' But when we came in there, they found out we could walk and chew gum at the same time.

Once we got working with each other, we gained respect for each other and it started to come together.

Do you think returning to the moon should be NASA’s main exploration goal?

I know we are very limited in our budget, and I want to see things happen quickly. I think the best place is a facility right there on the moon itself.

So, go directly to the surface and not build the lunar Gateway?



I just don't see the advantage of it. I listened, and I've studied, and I've tried to see the advantage of that Space Station. But to me it never registers as superior, or even better than doing it the simple way.

Get back to the moon and forget the orbiting Space Station. If that is needed in the future, show that it really is needed.

You've got the ability to produce oxidizer and fuel from the resources on the moon. So, why don't we go there, create those things at some point on the surface — either the North or South Pole?

The South Pole, I think, is a little bit better. And if you want to go up to the pole and study the ice and other resources from there, it's a small hop ... to get to any other spot in that hemisphere. And that can be happen very easily.

You've spent a lot of time in space. Are we prepared for the physical rigors of such long duration missions to deep space?

I think there's a real issue. You don't want to living in lunar orbit or Mars orbit for a long period of time. That's why I think it's great to just go to the surface to shield yourself [from the radiation].

Then, if you want to go somewhere, you go out and, obviously, you've got to suffer whatever radiation there is, and you’ve got to have your spacecraft or your spacesuit to give you some added protection.

You have also expressed concerns about the cost and capability of the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft.

SpaceX could be a lot cheaper than what we're going to do with the SLS and maybe even the Orion, as nice as those programs are.

People have fallen in love with them, but they got old and expensive. ... I think they're more worried about keeping some of the aerospace companies in fit shape than the American taxpayer.

Do you think NASA should extend operations on the ISS beyond 2024?

The question is, ‘What are we getting for it, versus other things that we can do with that money?’ We can cut back a little bit, let the other nations pick up even more.

I have to ask what we're getting back from it and what else we want to do in space? I think as we get to where we're wanting to go — back to the moon and onto Mars — the Space Station is probably going to lose some of its support.