In the 60s, they were pushing to get things out and accepted risk levels that today we would consider intolerable.

Today we've developed a cost-plus contracting approach plus insane safety and success standards that mean it is almost impossible to actually get anything done. With one notable exception - SpaceX.

Just throwing money into Boeing and Lockheed these days would generate profits for them, but not a lot of science for us. We need to change culture as well.

I remember someone on HN telling me several years ago that Virgin Galactic would be back quickly.

I absolutely agree. It's far worse now. And, not at all coincidently, NASA is doing much less science now. A return to the 70s budget by GDP would be good, but a return to the 60s budget by GDP would be even better.

I'd love to see NASA's budget increased, but not now - it would just get funneled into dead-end pork projects like SLS. I'd much rather wait till Starship is successfully operating (New Glenn would be a plus), and it is political viable to end the SLS entirely, and redirect all that money and some into missions (both science and exploration) rather than hardware development.

Or to put it another way, it isn't worth it to me to spend 1960's era money if we are only going to get 1960's era results. If we ever want to move on to bigger things in space, like colonization, we can't just throw money at the problem, we need to find ways to bring the cost down first.