Maybe more than 60 days between new episodes is just a long time for a new series. Maybe coming on after "Lost" wasn't as good an idea as it seemed when first proposed. Or maybe "Life On Mars" simply isn't getting the attention it deserves.

When I read through the audience numbers for the latest episode of what has become one of my favorite ABC series, I almost shuddered. More than 25 percent of the audience that joined Detective Sam Tyler as he fights crime in 1973 just before Thanksgiving didn't show up to watch the new first episode. And I don't know about you, but I want the audience to come back.

There is just something about "Life On Mars" that makes me smile, and almost yearn to live in 1973. And it seems that many things in my life have come to revolve around some aspect of this British import that looked to be DOA when ABC decided to recast the show and relieve David E. Kelley of his showrunner responsibilities.

Instead, we have what I feel is a major bonafide hit for ABC, and along with "Fringe," a great freshman start for both ABC and Fox. But yeah, it's weird how much I think about this show, and how excited I was to see it back.

Just this past week, I saw the movie "Milk" for the second time (yes, I'm one of those people who hope it will win every Oscar it's nominated for), and it was hard for me not to sit there and think, "Hmmm ... this is taking place in 1978. That means it's just five years after 'Life On Mars.'"

Living in 1973 would be horrible. No Internet. No computers. No "Everquest II." No "Lost." But then again, there would also be no constantly ringing cell phones and no having to suffer through the crap NBC airs Wednesdays at 8 either. So if I were to end up in 1973, I guess it would be almost breaking even on what I would lose and what I would gain.

Even stranger, the 125 is the most dysfunctional work place environment ever conceived, yet I so want to work there. I wouldn't mind the ribbing I would get from Ray Carling, the chewing out and gut punches from Gene Hunt, or even the love from a distance look from No Nuts. This show is just awesome.

I would've loved to see a Star Trek alum like Colm Meaney take on the beefy role of Gene, but I have to say, I saw the original pilot, and I wasn't impressed in any way with it. Maybe I was already spoiled with Harvey Keitel's Emmy-nomination-worthy job. Keitel is just awesome in that role.

At the same time, recreating the world of 1973 is hard, but we're quick to forgive occasional errors (like the Statue of Liberty having its post-1986 torch up instead of the one that was there in 1973). I don't know about you, but I feel like I'm really there. I feel like Dirty Harry is going to step out from somewhere, I don't know. I wasn't alive in 1973 (I was born three years later), but if I was there, this feels so real ... I sometimes forget this is just a television show.

So if you have yet to give "Life On Mars" a chance, now is the time to do it. Let's show ABC that this past week's rating was just a crazy fluke. Let's show the network that we support quality programming, and want to bring it back. We don't want it to suffer the same fate as "Pushing Daisies" ... we want more, more and more.

That sums it up ABC. When that order comes regarding the fate of "Life On Mars," do not cancel it. Instead, just write, "More, more, more!"

Michael Hinman is the founder and site coordinator of Airlock Alpha, writing out of Tampa, Fla. He can be reached at mhinman@airlockalpha.com.