> You characterize every single piece of equipment on platform so you can do somewhat accurate simulations. The shuttle flew most of the critical phases of their missions on the ground before ever uploading the code into an actual shuttle computer. The simulation system was continuously updated with real world performance information so it's accuracy continually improves.
This is not true of the Voyager probes:
> Newer NASA missions have hardware and software simulators on the ground, where engineers can test new procedures to make sure they do no harm when they uplink commands to the real spacecraft. Due to its age, Voyager doesn't have any ground simulators, and much of the mission's original design documentation remains in paper form and hasn't been digitized.
While it's true they don't have a standing ground segment simulator, you'd be very wrong to think they didn't fly the craft in simulation before launch.
As opposed to many other modern missions this craft is just flying for distance. It doesn't have to land anywhere or perform any complicated maneuvers. So a standing ground test platform wouldn't be particularly useful. The shuttle, our landers, and probes are obviously a different story.
This is not true of the Voyager probes:
> Newer NASA missions have hardware and software simulators on the ground, where engineers can test new procedures to make sure they do no harm when they uplink commands to the real spacecraft. Due to its age, Voyager doesn't have any ground simulators, and much of the mission's original design documentation remains in paper form and hasn't been digitized.
https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-repair-voyager-1-spacecraft...