The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
2 added 170 characters in body
source | link

(by I'm the SkySat propulsion engineer (flyinglead and have been flying LMP-103S)) since June 2016 when SkySat-3 launched from India.

To answer the question:

Yes it is viable and has a number of advantages, mostly the Isp(Isp * density) is much better than hydrazine. But, right now the engines are more expensive to build than those running hydrazine (due to higher combustion temperature, cost of propellant not really an issue).

Really it comes down to what your mission values (cost, complexity of CONOPS, lots of flight heritage, or minimizing size), but it is a serious contender for missions which previously would be hydrazine.

I put a more technical comparison here

(by SkySat propulsion engineer (flying LMP-103S)):

Yes it is viable and has a number of advantages, mostly the Isp * density is much better than hydrazine. But, right now the engines are more expensive to build than those running hydrazine (due to higher combustion temperature, cost of propellant not really an issue).

Really it comes down to what your mission values (cost, complexity of CONOPS, lots of flight heritage, or minimizing size).

I put a more technical comparison here

I'm the SkySat propulsion lead and have been flying LMP-103S since June 2016 when SkySat-3 launched from India.

To answer the question:

Yes it is viable and has a number of advantages, mostly the (Isp * density) is much better than hydrazine. But, right now the engines are more expensive to build than those running hydrazine (due to higher combustion temperature, cost of propellant not really an issue).

Really it comes down to what your mission values (cost, complexity of CONOPS, lots of flight heritage, or minimizing size), but it is a serious contender for missions which previously would be hydrazine.

I put a more technical comparison here

1
source | link

(by SkySat propulsion engineer (flying LMP-103S)):

Yes it is viable and has a number of advantages, mostly the Isp * density is much better than hydrazine. But, right now the engines are more expensive to build than those running hydrazine (due to higher combustion temperature, cost of propellant not really an issue).

Really it comes down to what your mission values (cost, complexity of CONOPS, lots of flight heritage, or minimizing size).

I put a more technical comparison here