>I think what you are talking about is mostly just normal engineering in the sense that the process is similar. What really makes space unique isn't space as such but that there is no real-world (real-space?) testing, no inspections after the fact or do-overs.
This is sort of true?
Spacecraft of all types are subject to a battery of physical tests before launch. This includes vacuum testing, thermal cycling and vibration (where many parts fail). There are normally duplicate components produced for different purposes. Some are just for testing the fit, others are to check that thermal expansion isn't a problem and so on. The actual flight hardware itself is usually tested as well, since it's designed to be repeatedly stressed within certain physical limits.
NASA has duplicate rovers in the lab that commands are tested on. Before a mission plan is uploaded, it's tested on the ground system to make sure that, for example, an inspection arm doesn't collide with the body of the rover. Modern rovers like curiosity are reasonably good at self-inspection, since it can take a 360 selfie. The rover is covered with calibration points, for example to measure how much dust is covering things and how far the wheels have worn down.
A lot of "testing" is gained through experience. Satellite manufacturers know what designs work based on prior designs. NASA learns a lot every time they put a new rover on Mars. Rover missions (like Curiosity, Spirit/Opportunity, etc) tend to outperform their original specs because the engineering is so conservative.
In very rare cases astronauts have done in-space inspections - for example the repairs to Hubble. The ISS is also used as a space-based testing laboratory for hundreds of different projects.
(I've worked in a space science laboratory where satellites were routinely tested, and indirectly on rover data).
Sure. I would put that sort of more in the high level engineering than "real-world testing" though. I mean if you are Waymo you can drive around for a year and see what happens. If you are Audi you can still repair some fault after delivery and redesign the next model year. It is when you can't do that you need high levels of quality assurance, integration, fault tolerance etc. If anyone could teleport small objects to Mars it would soon be littered with smart phones in aluminium foil regardless of how harsh the environment is ;)
This is sort of true?
Spacecraft of all types are subject to a battery of physical tests before launch. This includes vacuum testing, thermal cycling and vibration (where many parts fail). There are normally duplicate components produced for different purposes. Some are just for testing the fit, others are to check that thermal expansion isn't a problem and so on. The actual flight hardware itself is usually tested as well, since it's designed to be repeatedly stressed within certain physical limits.
NASA has duplicate rovers in the lab that commands are tested on. Before a mission plan is uploaded, it's tested on the ground system to make sure that, for example, an inspection arm doesn't collide with the body of the rover. Modern rovers like curiosity are reasonably good at self-inspection, since it can take a 360 selfie. The rover is covered with calibration points, for example to measure how much dust is covering things and how far the wheels have worn down.
A lot of "testing" is gained through experience. Satellite manufacturers know what designs work based on prior designs. NASA learns a lot every time they put a new rover on Mars. Rover missions (like Curiosity, Spirit/Opportunity, etc) tend to outperform their original specs because the engineering is so conservative.
In very rare cases astronauts have done in-space inspections - for example the repairs to Hubble. The ISS is also used as a space-based testing laboratory for hundreds of different projects.
(I've worked in a space science laboratory where satellites were routinely tested, and indirectly on rover data).