Ion Power?

[Bean]

The main issue I have with them is there's only 1 engine and 1 tank, given larger engines and tanks I'd be quite happy using Ion power from time to time.

[SSSPutnik]

They are ideal for small probes dropped from larger carriers. One tank is enough to execute plane changes, move orbits around etc.

Leave as is.

A bigger Xenon tank would be nice. Also 10x physics warp would be nice

[Spatzimaus]

They are ideal for small probes dropped from larger carriers. One tank is enough to execute plane changes, move orbits around etc.

More than that. Ions are great for tiny probes as-is, but they're also really useful for other purposes to supplement larger engines. For instance, my spaceplane has two ion engines mounted on the wingtips, with substantial xenon. These don't add much to its total mass, but add enough delta-V that I can fly to Laythe from Kerbin without refueling. Sure, it requires a burn of more than an hour even at x4 warp, but I do something else while it's doing that.

The nice part is that the ion pods are so light that they don't interfere with all the other things I do with that plane. It's not like the smaller probes, where the ion engine is the entirety of your thrust; adding a ton or two to a 34-ton plane isn't a big performance hit.

So I voted that they're fine as-is. I'm not saying that I wouldn't like a larger official ion (say, a 1.25m with three or four times the thrust) but they're very useful already.

A bigger Xenon tank would be nice. Also 10x physics warp would be nice

For the bigger tanks, I installed the Ion Engine mod, which among other things adds larger Xenon tanks (a 1.25m, a 2.5m, and a larger radial). (I also use the hybrid ion engines in that mod to replace LV-Ns in many designs, but the big xenon tanks are what matters here.) Even those haven't really been enough, so I'm also modding in a half-scale version of the class 1 fuselage/jet tank, changed to hold Xenon, as an alternative to the usual stacks of four or five xenon tanks. Alternately, any mod that auto-transfers fuel would make it trivial to use ions.

As for the higher physics warp, while I'd love to see it I wouldn't hold my breath. The Kraken is bad enough at x4, if you tried going to x10 your crafts would rip themselves to shreds.

What I think would be more likely is a dual-mode engine, a la the RAPIER, that crosses an ion with a conventional rocket. That way, you'd get most of the efficiency you wanted when transferring between planets, while having the raw thrust for emergencies and such. The far higher mass would also justify giving it a more respectable thrust value when in ion mode, since it'd be unsuitable for small probes.

[spinomonkey]

I say keep what we have, but add an additional size larger with a slightly bigger kick behind it.

[WafflesToo]

To the haters, I'd like to see the option forcing you to use them. If you're really that impatient just use Mainsails with infinite fuel enabled for everything /rollseyes

[Felsmak]

I wouldn't give Jeb any more power than he already has.

[Max Grant]

IRL ion engines are amazing. The Dawn probe is using one right now and will be the first vessel to visit and orbit two different worlds. The burn times go for WEEKS, however. If you look up the trajectory, there are colored indicators showing when it is burning vs coasting, and it burns almost the whole way there.

For ion engines to be real in the game, we would need to be able to program time warp, and a much higher time-rate for physics warp. As they are now they are usable. I would like to see the ability for physics warp to be a little higher when burning ion engines, without sacrificing stability. Don't know how that could be done without making some kind of exceptions to the normal game physics.

[Anton P. Nym]

I voted "stay"; they may be OP compared to the real world, but it's a compromise between realism and playability. I've used ions extenstively with mixed results, and I've grown to like them despite the limitations.

-- Steve

[Tex_NL]

Keep them as they are.

People complaining they are not strong enough should get their facts straight. Compared to real life KSP ions are seriously OVERpowered! Nerfing them to real life levels would make them unusable, as they are now they can at least be used to some effect.

[Geschosskopf]

I say keep them as-is.

Nerfing them to IRL stats probably can't be done with the present state of the game. It would certainly require a new interface and probably also a totally new way of keeping track of ships in flight, because real ion engines burn pretty much continuously for the entire trip. Prior to these things being done, ion engines would be useless. And buffing them would make them less realistic than they are now.

HOWEVER, I do favor the introduction of other ion-based engines, such as VASIMR, magnetoplastmadynamic thrusters of various types, and also the NanoFET as an alternative to RCS for small ships. Such things could usefully extend the tech tree, keeping career games going longer.

[Jank]

Buff em up. Don't care about realism of this particular aspect, I want the option to use them without leaving my computer to go do something else. Kind of defeats the purpose of playing a game, and my time is very limited as-is.

[relin]

I'm not so sure buffing them is the right move. I'm also unsure whether or not they're good as they are.

But for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, do NOT nerf them.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Alright, so looking around I see statements like "Ions are way too underpowered" or, "not waiting for 30 minute burn" BUT then I get these arguments "its way more powerful than in real life"

and "fuel usage is op"

To put it simply, in KSP we have and use time warp. You can't keep the engines running during time acceleration, at least not past 4x. In real life, Ion engines are extremely useful because our robots can keep maintaining thrust while ground control checks up every now and then and monitors.

I think ion engines might get more use if they were made more powerful and less efficient. Another way to make them fun would be to add in projected long term fuel burns, in which a sustained thrust would be applied over a duration in a maneuver and the map could show you a trajectory you will follow if you execute it--then during time acceleration the only things that need to be checked are fuel remaining and electricity.

[WafflesToo]

Why are so many people down on the ion engine but I never hear one word about that OP minimainsail with better Isp?

[Whovian]

The Skipper? I'm fine with its thrust and ISP; we need a mid-tier Jumbo-sized Engine to go between the Mainsail and the Poodle.

[Levelord]

Either increase its power or increase physical time warp. Last thing I need is waiting for the thrusters to finish.

Hit the nail on the head with this one.

For people who are too stubborn to accept that the ion engines need tweaking for gameplay's sake, at least they should accept that we need higher orders of time warp to compensate 45 minute engine burns. Seriously, waiting 45 minutes for an engine burn in a video game is excessive and unreasonable no matter how 'hardcore' you want to be.

[JumpsterG]

48-7S vs. LV-909 vs. LV-N = Vessel Mass dictates which to pick for greatest dV output.

ION = ALWAYS greatest dV output.

If thrust was increased to the point where average/large vessels can do burns under 15 minutes, you will NEVER choose any other engine for in-space activity (and they might, frighteningly, become launch capable from Kerbin, which shouldn't be a thing and is probably the #2 reason not to increase the thrust).

I think they fill their niche properly as far as thrust is concerned (EXCELLENT for small vessels, and a long-burn/high dV option for larger vessels).

I might take issue with the high electricity consumption rate. Perhaps that could be adjusted down a bit so we don't need massive solar arrays and/or battery banks to do our burns at max thrust or while in shadow. I feel that the added weight of the necessary electrical components hurts the already low thrust of ion vessels and sometimes turns otherwise small vessels into medium ones.

Sooo... Buff. But not in the thrust department.

[Anton P. Nym]

Why are so many people down on the ion engine but I never hear one word about that OP minimainsail with better Isp?

The Skipper? I'm fine with its thrust and ISP; we need a mid-tier Jumbo-sized Engine to go between the Mainsail and the Poodle.

I think he's talking about the Rockomax 48-7S; I think the Skipper's fine with its balance between efficiency and thrust, but the 7S has a good thrust-to-weight AND a high efficiency... which breaks the balancing mechanism. (With enough patience and careful design, you could build a rocket using nothing but clusters of 7Ses that likely would be comparable to other builds. You can't do that with any other engine.)

There's an argument to be made that the 7S needs to be nerfed to bring it back in line with its radial stablemate the 24-77. I'm not sure that a thread discussing the PB-ION is the right place for that argument.

-- Steve

[dshuck]

I think they're pretty well-balanced, but being able to run time-warp while just running ion engines would be great for some of those longer burns.

Then we'd be able to fly brachistochrone transfers between planets instead of just Hohmann transfers (burn your engine until you're halfway there, then turn around and burn the other way to stop).

[Spartwo]

There's an argument to be made that the 7S needs to be nerfed to bring it back in line with its radial stablemate the 24-77. I'm not sure that a thread discussing the PB-ION is the right place for that argument.

If you want to reduce the thrust of the 7S you're gonna have to reduce the mass also.

[Ralathon]

Doesn't KSP Interstellar have that solar sail with really low thrust, but it works during regular timewarp (5x, 10x 100x etc, not physical timewarp)?

Trick is that the acceleration is so low that you can assume the ship won't fall apart under the stress and therefore you can treat it as a point mass. And it is fairly easy to calculate how your trajectory will change overtime as you burn.

To make ion engines truly usable for both the casual crowd and the hardcore crowd without replacing the NERVA you'd need to add this mechanic to stock and reduce its thrust. Would make it an ideal engine for interplanetary space, where you have plenty of time to do your burns.

[DisarmingBaton5]

I vote stay, even if I never use ion power.

[WafflesToo]

I think he's talking about the Rockomax 48-7S; I think the Skipper's fine with its balance between efficiency and thrust, but the 7S has a good thrust-to-weight AND a high efficiency... which breaks the balancing mechanism. (With enough patience and careful design, you could build a rocket using nothing but clusters of 7Ses that likely would be comparable to other builds. You can't do that with any other engine.)

There's an argument to be made that the 7S needs to be nerfed to bring it back in line with its radial stablemate the 24-77. I'm not sure that a thread discussing the PB-ION is the right place for that argument.

-- Steve

Yes, yes, yes... you're right. Still irks me though.

[WhiteWeasel]

I'd love to see it buffed, maybe to .75 Kn, but based on popular vote people don't want that to happen. At least a buff of some kind would be nice, maybe people would be cool with reduced e consumption. Also it probably needs some better peripherals, like a larger xenon tank, perhaps larger static solar cells and the like.

[architeuthis]

I'd say they could use some changes to make them more practical, although some people may what to preserve the "realism" of the Ion engines and keep them similar to real life. I'll I can say to that is overkill realism only detracts from the fun of the game. I'm not content with 30 minute burn times, so let's buff them.

In principle I agree that gameplay should take precedence over realism, however overkill realism is not the PB-Ion's problem. They are probably the most ludicrously unrealistic part in the game (even more than the reaction wheels:)). But the isp vs thrust tradeoff is something that is pretty fundamental to rocket propulsion. Ion engines are defined by their high isp and low thrust, chemical rockets are defined by their low isp and high thrust, nuclear thermal rockets are somewhere in the middle. Low thrust means long burns, that's just how it goes; if there was a high-thrust high-isp option why would we ever use anything else?