In both cases you're well protected against the solar wind by distance and atmosphere in the case of the Mars rover and by the Van Allen belts in the case of the Space Shuttle. But both still have to worry about cosmic rays. Mars's thin atmosphere helps a bit with that but not nearly as much as you'd like.

EDIT: I suspect a lot of what lets you use Snapdragons in the rover is the idea of making error resistant systems rather than error resistent devices. The same thing that let us replace a single $10,000 hard driver with ten $100 hard drives in a RAID with the same performance and reliability despite the individual drives being much worse.

That’s not really accurate the sun causes real issues in LEO. See chapter 2 starting on page 9 here:

https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&co...

As an anecdotal bit of support, I seem to recall recently SpacX loosing a number of satellites in their LEO constellation because of sun activity

Yes, but that was not due to EM activity, it was because the solar activity made the atmosphere go up higher than usual which meant that the atmospheric drag was too strong for the engines to overcome.

Biggest difference is the lack of risk to human life, tbh

But more issues with temperature swings—ideally radiation wouldn't be the main concern here in Earth's atmosphere.

Rovers regulate internal temperatures to keep electronics happy. Ex: https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/rover/temperature/

We can't teleport something from one atmosphere to another, though. It's a long trip.

That’s a risk, but the chip is off for the trip which makes a significant difference. Fail safe is much easier if you can run diagnostics without needing the system to be doing it’s job.

Also, human lives aren’t at stake if things go awry.