I think the progress in the 1960's was more a result of the desperation of the Space Race than anything else. Losing to the Soviets would have been a political disaster, so NASA was pretty much given a blank check. Plus, that fear of losing provided motivation, and that's what pushed them to develop the Moon program in such a short amount of time. But it's like IceFire said, the costs associated with space exploration are absurdly high. We made the exception for Apollo, but now with so many problems here on Earth it's hard to draw support for major funding for space programs anymore. The private sector looks really promising, though...
With Project Constellation... I'm not a huge fan, since it doesn't seem all that exciting on the surface. But I've heard that the ultimate goal, at least for the Moon stage of Constellation, is to set up a permanent base on the Moon. That seems like a pretty neat goal, and more importantly it's something that has a good chance of drawing major public interest. But given the amount of interest it would draw, the fact that NASA hasn't made those intentions public makes me wonder if it's really in their plans. (Or maybe they're just keeping the bigger plans quiet until something finally goes right with Constellation; based on what I've heard, the early stages haven't been smooth at all...)
Anyway, sorry, went way off topic. Yeah, it's too bad we'll be losing Hubble... there's no way they'll be able to squeeze in another Shuttle mission to even try to recover it. I guess that's the thing about space exploration--sadly, recovering our most important vehicles isn't always an option. It's the same way for all the Mars rovers. But aren't they planning to launch a new space telescope in a few years?