> Contrast this to an engineer on a skyscraper for example - you would never hear "you cant expect me to go re-torque all 1000 bolts!
I'm going to guess that those engineers exist and they just don't work on skyscrapers... or they have software tools that make it easy... or they get paid by the hour and are fine with it.
I have no idea what kind of software engineering projects you work on, but perhaps you and I both work with a lot of people that would (should?!) never be allowed near the skyscraper-equivalent software.
As far as I know, once skyscrapers are built, they tend to stay where they are. Spacecraft, on the other hand, move around, and do so at astonishing velocities, and need to have hyper-accurate navigation and control.
For skyscrapers, modeling the forces that act on the materials and the environment works on known quantities, based on thousands of years of building experience. The biggest failings with spacecraft involved the guidance and navigation systems: the ones that determine where it is, how fast it's moving and in what direction, and how and when to fire the engines to change velocity. The hard part is autonomous control, not static design.
Yes, and that was a failure in modeling the behavior of the building's supports when subjected to high winds. There's no computer controlling the building's position with a bug that will cause it to flip over and self-destruct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_flight_V88
I'm going to guess that those engineers exist and they just don't work on skyscrapers... or they have software tools that make it easy... or they get paid by the hour and are fine with it.
I have no idea what kind of software engineering projects you work on, but perhaps you and I both work with a lot of people that would (should?!) never be allowed near the skyscraper-equivalent software.