>>11557619They have the redundancy actually. There are two sets of controls in Crew Dragon, just like in the Shuttle or Soyuz, it's only the left one on that picture.
>Space Shuttle Controls.jpg In fact, those controls are less reliable than a set of MFDs. In those panels, you have thousands of wires that can fail, and each failure can lead to troubles. And if an indicator fails, you never know if it failed, if the subsystem has failed, or there's just no event to signal. With a screen, you always know it failed - there's no picture/backlight.
Compared to that, MFDs:
- focus the attention on what's important at the time, instead of hundreds of distracting indicators not important for the current situation
- present the information in the best possible way, without needing complex/unreliable mechanical setups like mechanical attitude and ILS indicators do
- always have a redundant display that can be configured to provide the same info at any time
That's why they've been used in Shuttle and are used in avionics since 70s. But classic MFDs with side buttons can't be relied on for some controls because every button represent a different menu option each time. Touchscreens make this obsolete - you just tap what you see, shortening the UI feedback loop.
So yeah, touchscreens are actually superior to traditional controls, they are safer and more reliable. Most avionics made in recent years rely on them as the primary flight displays. Obviously you can't replace force feedback devices (like the stick or rudder) with them, and also the tactile controls like the ejection handle which needs to be pulled without looking.
