Why isn't the ion tech listed under propulsion?

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

Hi all,

Today, for the first time ever, I took a look at the ion engines. The first (stupid ) question that comes to mind is: why are these listed under the utility tab and not under propulsion? Is there a good reason for this!? Doesn't it count as a propulsion system and if so, why not?

I never noticed this before because I never was interested in them.

[RocketPilot573]

Because they are so weak that they are not even considered a form a propulsion, all they do is light up and consume electricity.

I honestly don't know...

[regex]

Because they're less a proper propulsion system and more a utility item for sucking away the electricity in your craft.

E: pretty much completely ninja'd, that's awesome.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

Because they're less a proper propulsion system and more a utility item for sucking away the electricity in your craft.

But they are still propulsion, right? So, why not list them there!?

[regex]

But they are still propulsion, right? So, why not list them there!?

Because someone might accidentally use them.

[shoveycat]

I personally think they should be listed under propulsion, they're a decent source of thrust if you've got the patience

[fatfluffycat]

Its not propulsion, its more like aggressive blowing, in space.

[sharpspoonful]

Ehhh they are listed under utility because they aren't really a major source of propulsion. They are used pretty much exclusively for small probes and for orbit corrections and adjustments. Yes, you can use them to navigate the Kerbol system, but you have to have the patience to do the long burns and its is more ineffective then simply using NERVAs.

[Depth]

I see satellites as a utility and the ion engines part of it. I feel the engine belongs there in the same way RCS belongs in control, even though RCS is technically propulsion too.

[FITorion]

It's always bugged me a little that they aren't.

[Whackjob]

It's always bugged me a little that they aren't.

Then I'm more than happy to be the one to test you for OCd. How do you feel?

[HeadHunter67]

They're not really "propulsion", they're more like a little light. They're so bad, no respectable planetary body wants them near, so they are pushed away.

[allmhuran]

I agree that they should be under propulsion. I assume they are not for the same reason that wheels are not: they don't use liquid fuel (yes, they use tanks of Xenon, but not "liquid fuel" as such). Everything in the propulsion tab is somehow related to liquid fuel (which is, I assume, why the fuel lines are there and not under utility).

[Geschosskopf]

Then I'm more than happy to be the one to test you for OCd. How do you feel?

I feel like you got it wrong. It's actually CDO. That's OCD only with the letters in proper alphabetical order, as they should be .

[KerbMav]

Because they are just a tool to absolutely fine tune your satellite orbit.

And I hope I will get there soon, RT2 practically warrants this - had to refiddle my comm-group because it went blind after only 50 orbits or so ...

[doggie015]

You need a cluster of 200 to get any decent thrust and you need about 20,000 of the largest batteries to fire it for more than 1 second

[celem]

I like em in utility to be honest. Yes, its a form of propulsion, but not in the same league as any of the other options under the prop tab.

If I had my way the RCS tanks would also be in utility, though the rcs thrusters being control makes some sense.

I always assumed the ion to be in utility just to drop a little hint to the player that they are ill-suited as a main propulsion mechanism.

[kurja]

I agree that they should be under propulsion. I assume they are not for the same reason that wheels are not: they don't use liquid fuel (yes, they use tanks of Xenon, but not "liquid fuel" as such). Everything in the propulsion tab is somehow related to liquid fuel (which is, I assume, why the fuel lines are there and not under utility).

srb's do not use liquid fuel either

[3mon]

I remember building an ion probe with loads of deltaV, and then abandoning it miserably due to the absurd burn times. Never came back to those engines.... they are not even suited to be in "utility"

[7499275]

Because someone might accidentally use them.

I use them, of course I edited the CFG to give it 250 max power and the ISP is around 100k

[Madrias]

Because having your Kerbal get out and push actually has more thrust. Or that you can get more thrust out of your RCS thrusters...

[Wallace]

What really bugs me is. Mono propellant tanks are in propulsion, and RCS schnozzles are in control. Y U NO in same group?? Especially as control is almost empty.

[KerbMav]

ModuleManager only just had a new version out, maybe ... ?

[Felsmak]

The ion engine is basically a lightbulb on steroids.

[BrickedKeyboard]

You know what the ironic part is? The ion engines in ksp are horrendous overpowered, by a factor of about 1000

The other rocket engines in the game are actually a little worse than the state of the art engines (high end Russian liquid fueled rocket engines have better performance and weigh less, the NERVA rocket is worse than prototype nuclear engines) but the ion engine has about 1000 times more thrust than the real thing.