Back to the future, part II

No sooner did I finish up my second or third reading of "Lost Moon," Jim Lovell's book which was turned into the movie "Apollo 13," than NASA announced it was going to do it again.

This time, I think they're doing it right.

As someone who remembers listening to John Glenn's first flight via an AM radio on the window sill of my first grade classroom, I feel I have as much of a right to an opinion as any other taxpayer.

I always had a problem with the space shuttle, which has proven to be a fragile albatross around the agency's neck.

I mean, why combine the crew capsule with what is essentially a freight-hauling truck, and why spend millions of dollars launching a large, heavy airframe into space when a low-tech, cheap parachute system would return the crew and important equipment to earth just as well?

Check out nasa.gov, and you'll see something that the NASA administrator describes as "Apollo on steroids" for heading back to the moon.

And, why not?

The Russians are using the same booster they first launched 40 years ago. The Apollo system worked great -- with the exception of that Apollo 13 incident mentioned earlier -- so why should we reinvent the wheel?

NASA's new plan looks like something I'd cobble together, given access to the the attic in Houston.

It utilizes various parts from the shuttle, including engines, tank and solid rocket boosters, and lifts a new four-person conical capsule which links up with an overgrown LEM in earth orbit.

Yes, it will be expensive -- NASA projects $105 billion over the next 13 years -- especially in light of the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina expenses.

We will always have better ways to spend our money here on earth.

But for my money, there's no better use of tax dollars than inspiring today's first graders to do something great.