spacex - Why will Starlink satellites use krypton instead of xenon for . . . The Starlink satellites, however, will use a different noble gas: krypton It has a lower density, so the satellite fuel tanks need to be larger, and it offers less performance than xenon But krypton can be bought at just one-tenth the cost of xenon, which matters if a company wants to fuel thousands of satellites Price and production rate
What performance specification would be lower for Krypton than for . . . The Starlink satellites, however, will use a different noble gas: krypton It has a lower density, so the satellite fuel tanks need to be larger, and it offers less performance than xenon But krypton can be bought at just one-tenth the cost of xenon, which matters if a company wants to fuel thousands of satellites (emphasis added)
Does Krypton or Xenon produce more thrust in a Hall-effect thruster . . . Does this then mean that while Krypton needs more power to operate, it achieves higher specific impulse because the electrons will have higher velocity when ionized? But then why is the overall thrust for Krypton lower? Wouldn't the above mean that for the same flow rate of fuel, at the same discharge voltage, Krypton produces more thrust?
physics - Why might krypton have a lower utilization fraction than . . . The lower mass of krypton with respect to xenon also decreases the sputtering yield approximately by the square root of the mass ratio If Hall thruster efficiency on krypton can be improved to approach that of xenon, a krypton thruster could benefit several interplanetary missions due to its higher specific impulse and longer lifetime
spacex - How much krypton do Starlink satellites carry when they are . . . Starlink satellites use krypton as propellant This answer roughly estimates 2 3 kg of Krypton based on a total delta-V of 190 m s and an exhaust velocity of 20,000 m s But how close is that to reality? Is it known how much propellant is loaded into a Starlink satellite at launch?
Lifetime of Krypton thruster without shielding compared to Xenon . . . It is argued here (by the user uhoh) that Krypton might have a higher erosion rate on the thruster compared to Xenon However, here is mentioned that the lifetime of Krypton-fueled thrusters might increase due to the fact that fewer doubly-ionized particles will occur (the 2nd ionization energy of Krypton is also higher than Xenon)
How much does it cost to fill an ion thuster with Xenon for a . . . The Starlink constellation v1 satellites used Krypton for its ion thrusters Starlink v2 satellites use Argon Alibaba shows Krypton at around ~$100 cubic meter, which is less than a tenth of the of the price volume wise And Argon costs far less than Krypton
ion thruster - How much of the worlds xenon has been used in . . . Krypton is far more common (~1 ppm, over 10x that of xenon), and is produced with similar strategies, so it is a lot cheaper than xenon, at 290 USD per kilogram SpaceX is launching Starlink very fast, so they can't wait for a suitable xenon supply to show up Xenon is commonly used only because it has a higher performance
What are the tradeoffs in propellant choices for ion electric based . . . If you change fuels (say from xenon to krypton, which is lighter), but don't change field strengths, then F stays the same, while m decreases, which means a (acceleration on the ion) must be bigger If you know the rocket equation, bigger acceleration on your ions is the same as higher exhaust velocity, which means you have higher ISP using