Rassvet constellation suffers another satellite failure in orbit

Russia’s Rassvet constellation has suffered another in-orbit failure, with tracking data showing at least one Rassvet spacecraft failed to raise its altitude and reentered the atmosphere, according to open-source tracking reports and specialist coverage of the program.

The Rassvet project — described as a low-Earth-orbit broadband constellation intended as a Russian analogue to Starlink — has struggled to lift many of its satellites to operational altitudes after two production launches this year, Tom’s Hardware reported that “many of the 16 launched hit less than half their 870km target, and two are already falling back to Earth.”

an anonymous wide shot of a low-Earth orbit tracking array at dusk, radar dishes silhouetted against a pale sky, one panel showing orbital tracks on a screen nearby

Independent analysis published by Militarnyi also documents ongoing problems across the two Rassvet batches, saying two satellites from the July launch — numbered No. 17 and No. 23 — have shown “no significant orbital raising and have descended from approximately 305 km to 284 km,” putting them on trajectories likely to reenter the atmosphere within weeks if their propulsion systems do not engage.

Satellite propulsion and orbit-raising are central to Rassvet’s deployment plan: Militarnyi explains that launches place the spacecraft into roughly 300 km parking orbits, from which the satellites are expected to climb to higher altitudes using on-board thrusters over several weeks to months. That staged ascent process has been slower and more uneven than Bureau 1440’s stated targets, the analysis notes.

an anonymous close-up of a mission control console showing orbital altitude plots and annotated telemetry charts, hands absent from the frame

What trackers and analysts say

Tom’s Hardware cited public tracking data and expert commentary showing that a significant portion of the second launch’s payload failed to reach planned operational altitudes, and that two spacecraft were already exhibiting orbital decay and descent toward reentry.

Militarnyi’s timeline-based analysis compared altitude profiles for the March and July batches, concluding most second-batch satellites began raising their orbits earlier than the first batch but that at least two units show a complete lack of altitude gain and a trend toward reentry. Militarnyi says the median altitude of the new spacecraft was higher than the first batch at the same point after launch, but that several problematic units remain under close observation.

Taken together, the open reporting indicates the Rassvet program is still in a deployment and troubleshooting phase rather than at full operational capacity. Neither source attributes the failures to a single confirmed hardware fault; instead they point to varied issues in propulsion activation and slower-than-planned orbit-raising dynamics across multiple satellites.

Context for commercial and defense watchers: successful orbit-raising is essential for a LEO broadband system to provide sustained coverage and link budgets comparable to established operators. As Tom’s Hardware noted, losing a portion of a small initial fleet — or having multiple satellites stall at low altitudes — reduces the constellation’s early coverage and raises costs for the operator as replacements or remediation are planned.

For further background on Starlink-like deployments and how orbit-raising fits into broader constellation economics, see earlier coverage of recent commercial launches and Starlink deployments.

Internal links: SpaceX Starship reached orbit and SpaceX launch targets 27 Starlink satellites.

Sources

  • Tom’s Hardware — reported many of the 16 satellites failed to reach operational altitude and that two were already falling back to Earth.
  • Militarnyi — provided altitude-by-altitude analysis and identified satellites No. 17 and No. 23 as failing to raise orbit and descending toward reentry.

Give your feedback

★★★★★

Be the first to rate this post
or leave a detailed review



ECIKS.org is an independent media. Support us by adding us to your Google News favorites:

Post a comment

Publish a comment