According to this source, NASA's budget in 1966 was $5,425,815,000, or 5.5% of the total federal budget. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $30,438,822,150 in today's dollars. The current NASA budget is less than half that, and is less than 0.8% of the federal budget. Of the current NASA budget, a substancial percentage is being consumed by overruns on the ISS. It's hardly a wonder that fewer new projects are underway.
Also, the 1960s were a busy time for aerospace engineering. The first missions to other planets were being flown. There were the Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, and Apollo missions to the moon. New concepts like active repeater communications satellites, weather satellites, navigation satellites, and the like were developed, too. It was a time when "Live Via Satellite" was printed on the screen as we saw events happening around the world.
New aircraft technologies were coming on line too, such as the first and second generation jet airliners. At the beginning of the 1960s, the 707s, DC-8s, and Convair 880 were entering service. Smaller airliners like the DC-9, 727, and 737 came online to offer jet service to smaller markets. By the end of the 1960s, the Boeing 747 was completing certification for service and their SST was being designed.
New military aircraft and weapons systems were entering service or on the drawing boards. We had the test flights of the XB-70, the development of the F-111 and the first generation of smart bombs, and new planes like the F-14 and F-15 were on the drawing boards.
Even general aviation saw a lot of activity back then, with the development of business jets like the Lear 23 & 24 and its competitors. Companies like Cessna and Piper were building thousands of light planes each year with a new design hitting the market every year. Today, all of general aviation put together doesn't produce 1000 planes a year if you don't count the homebuilts.
A lot was happening in aerospace during the 1960s, both in the government and commercial sectors. It was an exciting time.
Space/Science » in reply to No surprise
Re: No surprise
