Rassvet Deployment Shows Mixed Results, Not Total Collapse
Initial reports of a catastrophic failure for Russia's new satellite network are being revised after detailed orbital analysis. The data suggests a troubled start rather than a complete loss of the constellation.
The latest assessments indicate that the 32 Rassvet satellites did not all fail, contrary to early fears. While one spacecraft from the first batch reentered Earth's atmosphere, the broader picture is one of a difficult but ongoing deployment. The network is struggling to reach its intended operational altitude, but it is not a proven total collapse.
Bureau 1440 has launched two groups of 16 satellites each, aiming to create a Russian low-Earth-orbit broadband network as a domestic alternative to Starlink. However, the process is slower and more uncertain than hoped. A September 11 analysis by satellite observer Marco Langbroek clarified that both batches followed similar altitude-raising profiles during their first 50 days, challenging the narrative of a specific failure in the second group.
Orbit raising takes significant time
Placing a satellite into low Earth orbit is only the first step. Spacecraft often need weeks or months to gradually raise their orbits to the intended operating height. Consequently, a low altitude in an early tracking snapshot signals a difficult deployment but does not prove the spacecraft is permanently lost. This distinction is critical for understanding the current status of the Rassvet constellation.
The first batch, launched in March 2026, eventually saw 13 spacecraft settle near 510 kilometers. One satellite failed to raise its orbit and reentered on June 6. However, two additional objects from this group remained unresolved in the latest reassessment. Their low altitude did not automatically mean failure, as comparable first-batch spacecraft had later climbed to higher orbits.
Second batch performance remains uncertain
Similar caution applies to the second batch, launched in July 2026. At the time of a late August tracking snapshot, these satellites also remained at relatively low altitudes. Three objects from this group were left unresolved in the analysis. Because the first batch demonstrated that low-altitude spacecraft could successfully climb later, the low position of the second batch does not serve as definitive proof of loss.
The claim that the entire second batch failed was not established by the data. The later comparison found no demonstrated evidence that the second batch was progressing more slowly than the first at a comparable stage. This suggests that the deployment is merely immature rather than broken, with the constellation still in the process of stabilizing its orbits.
Confirmed loss is narrow and specific
The only confirmed event is a single spacecraft reentry in June after failing to raise its orbit. This is a real loss, but it does not justify turning every low-altitude object into a casualty count. There is also no supported basis for assigning a specific propulsion failure as the cause. The orbital pattern shows the deployment’s difficulty, but it does not identify the engineering mechanism behind it.
According to GN auto tech/space, the durable conclusion is mixed: Rassvet has suffered a confirmed loss, but the fate of every spacecraft in the two batches was not settled by the latest observations. The network is not yet a functional equivalent to Starlink, but it is not a complete failure either. The situation remains one of a troubled, immature deployment that requires further monitoring.
