Yes, it can reboost the station. Dragon can't. Cygnus, Dreamchaser, and Soyuz can reboost. This matters because the station can't boost itself.

Boost as in push it to a different orbit?

Yeah. The atmosphere is very thin but nonzero at ISS altitude so atmospheric drag causes orbital degradation over time. Whenever a resupply ship docks, if it has extra fuel, they orient the station so the ship is pointed prograde and fire the main thruster to increase the altitude. They plan to leave enough fuel for the supply ship to do its usual retro burn and land or burn up as normal.

The station can also boost itself with the Zvezda module, which has thrusters.

https://www.nasa.gov/international-space-station-frequently-...

It has physical knobs and switches as opposed to relying on touchscreens. I consider that a feature, although a minor one.

It is worth noting that Dragon does have physical controls, they're just backups hidden under the panel below the screens for emergencies. This is on top of the redundancy offered by the screens, where if one screen fails, the same controls are accessible on the other ones.

Plus, since it's supposed to fly autonomously, there isn't a lot of physical control to be done. This isn't like with cars where there's an argument that tactile controls are easier to adjust without looking away from the road.

I am not an astronaut. I prefer knobs. As my comment said, I think of them as a feature. I think the average astronaut would put up with their lack of preferred control schemes to go into space.

Starliner isn't even a rocket, it's a capsule. A capsule (Starliner) got launched today on top of a really old rocket design (Atlas V) which first launched in 2002...

Not really. The biggest apparent difference in the user experience is how the vehicle is commanded.

Here's a pic of the Starliner control panel: https://x.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1207437431374565376/phot...

And Crew Dragon's control panel: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/30/21275753/nasa-spacex-astr...

I shudder thinking about what would happen if a touch action on the touchscreen would get stuck

The Dragon Crew has physical backup controls. The touchscreen allows for a more interactive UI that you can try out here:

https://iss-sim.spacex.com/

But the controls themselves have physical buttons in addition to the touch screen.

Also all systems have triple redundancy.

There was a decent amount of concern within NASA on the touchscreen design, but the contract type tended to force those discussions to the sideline. In the end, NASA wanted a ride and not to drive the design.

Edit: for those wondering, this is not hearsay or speculation; it is from direct experience (albeit 5+ years ago)

It does. It can (and will) land on land instead of water.

Like Soyuz?

Interesting, why would they want that capability?

All Russian space vehicles land on land because they don’t have easy access to warm waters and Kazakhstan steppe is big and empty.

But why boeing/nasa would want that?

Tradeoffs on the kind of refurbishment needed compared to a splashdown, since Starliner is supposed to be reusable. Plus stuff like faster extraction of time-sensitive payloads and overall cheaper capsule processing operations since you don't need specially fitted boats chasing after the capsule.

Dragon was also initially intending to land on solid ground, but dropped the idea when NASA asked for additional tests to prove that popping landing legs out of the heat shield would be safe. SpaceX had intended such landings in large part because of the plans for Red Dragon, but since by then they had started to shift towards Starship, they deemed it easier to just splashdown and deal with the extra refurbishment than try to prove out a technology they no longer felt the need for.

Think the main reason is that sea-recoveries are expensive compared to ones on land. I imagine there's at least some extra risk to a sea recovery as well (one of the Mercury capsules sank during recovery, though happily not with its astronaut inside).

Landing in water is bad for equipment--the salt water tends to corrode, so refurbishing the capsule after a water landing is a bit harder.

Is that a feature or just a difference? I assume there's trade-offs with both - is landing on land significantly better?

It's faster and more efficient, I think. You don't need a fleet of ships to go out to the sea.

Interesting to think about. I know Starliner lands in Utah. I don't know where, but I'm guessing it's somewhere very remote. I wonder if the effort to get out to the ocean to recover a ship is significantly different than getting to a remote part of the desert to recover.

Additionally, I know when the first Crew Dragon landed, it clearly wasn't hard or expensive to get to given that there were a bunch of small, private boats that (inappropriately) approached the spacecraft. It was quite close to shore, not like the old Apollo missions landing in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific.

They also have better produced livestreams in general, making it worth checking in in advance.