The new plasma thruster will slash the cost of building massive satellite constellations.

🟠 Specialists from the Moscow Aviation Institute and the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology developed the engine

🟠 Krypton is 5–10x less expensive than xenon and available in much larger volumes

🟠 Designed for at least 7 years of service life in orbit, with 7,500+ hours of total thrust and multiple restart capability

🟠 The shift to krypton was driven by the need for affordable propulsion as Russia scales up multi‑satellite projects like the Sfera communication system

As constellations grow from dozens to thousands of satellites, driving down propellant costs by 80–9

The Details:

For space engines, krypton is generally considered better than xenon primarily because of its significantly lower cost and greater availability, as xenon is scarce and expensive, costing roughly ten times as much. While this economic advantage is compelling, it comes with a performance trade-off. The search results consistently show that krypton operation typically results in lower overall thruster efficiency compared to xenon, with efficiency gaps ranging from 2% to as high as 30% depending on the thruster type and operating conditions . However, krypton’s lower atomic mass and higher ionization energy allow for the achievement of a higher theoretical specific impulse. In practice, this can translate to a slightly better specific impulse (e.g., over 2300 seconds for krypton vs. over 2200 seconds for xenon in one study) , meaning it can be a more fuel-efficient choice for missions where performance and cost are prioritized over maximizing raw thrust or efficiency. Despite its efficiency drawbacks, the substantial cost savings make krypton an increasingly attractive and practical alternative for many space missions.