And what many people of either side forget: both are not a one size fits all. There are some things that need planning up front (a car or a rocket) and some things can be done agile and iteratively. Likewise, some things can't be made via solopreneurship/indiehacking and some things can't be achieved with classic VC-backed entrepreneurship. There's a time for both.
There’s the stories of college professors who split their class into two groups, one group that is graded on quality of a single photo/pottery submission, and the other group graded solely on quantity of work produced, and the group tasked with producing quantity always produces higher quality.
I guess I don’t see why building a car or rocket would be different, other than we now know how to do it well.
When people were first building rockets, it was just a blooper real of failures.
Is there some distinction along figuring out the theory/physics, versus figuring out the application, real world, material science angle? Like I could see spending a long time on the theory side, but once that’s understood, it seems like figuring out which materials can produce the required physics is quick iteration’s bread-and-butter.
