The short answer is no: the 32 Rassvet satellites did not all fail. Bureau 1440’s deployment has produced one confirmed reentry, a group of first-batch spacecraft that later settled near 510 kilometers, and several unresolved cases. A September 11 analysis by satellite observer Marco Langbroek also found that the two batches followed broadly comparable altitude-raising profiles during their first 50 days.
That makes Rassvet a troubled and immature deployment—not a proven total collapse.
Two launches, two dated snapshots
Bureau 1440 launched the first batch of 16 Rassvet communications satellites on March 23, 2026, followed by another 16 on July 19. Rassvet is intended to become a Russian low-Earth-orbit broadband network and a domestic alternative to Starlink.
The launch itself is only the opening move. Satellites placed into low Earth orbit may need to raise their orbits gradually before reaching their intended operating configuration. A low altitude in an early tracking snapshot can therefore signal a difficult deployment without proving that the spacecraft is permanently lost.
| Date | Event | Batch or scope | Reader-relevant result |
| March 23, 2026 | First Rassvet launch | 16 satellites | The first batch entered low Earth orbit and began its orbit-raising phase. |
| June 6, 2026 | One spacecraft reentered | First batch | One satellite failed to raise its orbit and reentered. |
| July 19, 2026 | Second Rassvet launch | 16 satellites | A second batch entered low Earth orbit for the same planned constellation. |
| August 31, 2026 | Dated tracking snapshot | July batch | The satellites remained at relatively low altitudes at that point in the deployment. |
| September 11, 2026 | Marco Langbroek published a reassessment | Both batches | Comparable early altitude profiles weakened the claim that the second batch had definitively failed. |
What the later orbital analysis changed
The most important update came from comparing the batches at a similar number of days after launch rather than treating one snapshot as a final verdict. Marco Langbroek found that both groups occupied broadly similar altitude ranges during their first roughly 50 days.
The first batch eventually produced a clearer result: 13 spacecraft settled near 510 kilometers. One other spacecraft reentered on June 6. Two additional first-batch objects could not yet be declared failures in the September 11 reassessment.
The same caution applies to low-altitude spacecraft from the July batch. Three objects remained unresolved in that analysis. Their altitude alone did not prove permanent loss because comparable first-batch spacecraft had later climbed.
So, did the entire second batch fail? That was not established. The dated observations showed a difficult early deployment, but the later comparison found no demonstrated evidence that the second batch was progressing more slowly than the first at a comparable stage.
This distinction matters in spaceflight. “Did not reach the final orbit yet” and “the satellite is dead” are not interchangeable statements. Orbit raising can take time; reentry is a specific outcome.
One confirmed loss does not equal 32 failures
The confirmed event is narrow and concrete: one first-batch Rassvet spacecraft reentered on June 6 after failing to raise its orbit. That is a real loss.
It does not justify turning every low-altitude object into a casualty count. The September 11 reassessment placed 13 first-batch satellites near 510 kilometers and left several other spacecraft unresolved. The durable conclusion is therefore a mixed one: Rassvet has suffered a confirmed loss, while the fate of every spacecraft in the two batches was not settled by the latest observations used in that analysis.
There is also no supported basis here for assigning a propulsion failure as the cause. The orbital pattern shows the deployment’s difficulty; it does not, by itself, identify the engineering mechanism behind it.
Rassvet is not yet a Starlink-equivalent network
Rassvet was presented as a Russian broadband constellation and a domestic alternative to Starlink. That comparison describes the program’s ambition, not an equivalent level of network maturity.
Two 16-satellite launches are a beginning, not a finished global service. The reported orbit-raising problems and unresolved spacecraft statuses matter because a broadband constellation depends on many satellites reaching useful operating configurations, staying there, and working together as a network. A launch count alone cannot demonstrate that outcome.
For readers trying to interpret the headlines, the practical rule is simple: count launched satellites separately from satellites that have reached their intended operating role. Rassvet had 32 satellites launched in 2026, but the available deployment picture was still developing when the September 11 reassessment was published.
The larger plan remains ambitious
Russia has reported plans for 300 Rassvet satellites by 2027 and 924 by 2035. Those are program targets, not verified deployment results.
The early 2026 missions make the scale of that challenge visible. Bureau 1440 must move from two batches with a mixed orbital outcome to a much larger constellation while maintaining reliable launches, orbit raising and satellite operations. The confirmed reentry does not make the expansion impossible, but it does show why launch totals and operational capacity should not be treated as the same metric.
The bottom line
Rassvet’s 2026 deployment is a setback, but the evidence does not support calling it a total failure. One first-batch spacecraft reentered, 13 first-batch objects later settled near 510 kilometers, and several spacecraft remained unresolved in Marco Langbroek’s September 11 analysis based on observations through September 10.
The story is less dramatic than “all 32 satellites failed”—and more useful. Bureau 1440 has begun deploying the constellation, but the path from launch to a mature broadband network remains unfinished.
