You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Iodine has a lower ionization potential than xenon (1008.4 kJ/mol v. 1170.4 kJ/mol), is far more abundant and cheap, and has a melting point of 386.85 °K, so in can be stored solid to be turn to liquid just before use.
Russian Energia is developing a ion thruster running on pure iodine, that is ten time cheaper than xenon ion thrusters.
Offline
Offline
This would make the propellant tank for the ITV suitably tiny and non-pressurized. Thanks for the info, Quaoar and SpaceNut. Iodine is a common test propellant for high power MPD thrusters, too, as a function of the cost of Xenon.
Offline
The team used iodine to fuel a 20 kg (44 pound) CubeSat satellite with an engine named the NPT30-I2, which was launched on 6 November 2020. Maneuvers were carried out successfully, and iodine was shown to achieve higher ionization efficiency than xenon too.
Offline
Ion Drives have been discussed in a number of threads
Space dot com also covered this recent story
https://www.space.com/spacecraft-propul … sted-orbit
I will quote Calibans post from another thread
This link examines the benefits and disbenefits of different ion propulsion propellants.
https://beyondnerva.com/electric-propul … opellants/Argon appears to be particularly promising for Earth-Mars interplanetary transit, due to its relative abundance in the Martian atmosphere. Iodine should be available as a chemically bound salt in the Martian regolith.
Offline
Cost usually goes with rarity and with that handling as well as design of how to use it since that goes with corrosiveness of the new fuel type. Next up is the energy to propel it at velocity to provide the thrust from its exit. The heavier the material the more the push and the smaller amount you need of it over time.
Offline
Pages: 1