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). Is there any concrete calculations on which one offers longer lifetime?
Expanding on the above, for Starlink satellites, where the mission lifetime is about 5 years, should lifetime limitations even be considered? Isn't this too little time to erode the thruster even with higher erosion rates than Xenon?
I couldn't find (and don't know how to calculate) how much time it would take for Krypton particles to erode the thruster to the point where it loses performance and becomes unusable.