Context & The Gist
The article discusses the recent failure of ISRO’s PSLV-C62 mission, which mirrors a similar anomaly experienced during the PSLV-C61 mission in May 2025. This marks a troubling repeat, raising questions about the robustness of ISRO’s quality assurance protocols. The central argument is that a lack of transparency regarding the root cause of the previous failure and a perceived ‘rush’ to launch the C62 mission, despite the unresolved issues, are contributing factors to the current predicament.
The article highlights a shift in ISRO’s culture towards greater secrecy, potentially hindering its ability to learn from mistakes and maintain its traditionally high standards of reliability.
Key Arguments & Nuances
- Recurring Anomaly: The failures of both PSLV-C61 and PSLV-C62 involved issues with the third stage of the rocket, suggesting a systemic problem rather than isolated incidents.
- Lack of Transparency: The Failure Analysis Committee (FAC) report for the C61 mission was not made public, leading to speculation and hindering independent scrutiny.
- Commercial Implications: The PSLV is being marketed as a commercial launch vehicle, and repeated failures will likely increase insurance premiums, making it less competitive.
- Prioritization Concerns: Launching the C62 mission before fully understanding the C61 failure suggests a prioritization of launch cadence over safety and quality.
- Strategic Considerations: The C62 mission carried the EOS-N1 satellite, built by DRDO, potentially adding pressure to proceed with the launch despite the risks.
UPSC Syllabus Relevance
- GS Paper III: Science and Technology – Space Technology: Understanding the challenges and advancements in India’s space program, including launch vehicle technology and quality control.
- GS Paper II: Governance – Issues Relating to Development and Management of Science and Technology: Analyzing the role of transparency and accountability in scientific organizations like ISRO.
- GS Paper III: Economy – Infrastructure: Assessing the economic implications of space program failures, particularly in the context of commercialization and insurance.
Prelims Data Bank
- PSLV (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle): India’s first operational launch vehicle, known for its reliability and versatility.
- LVM-3 (Launch Vehicle Mark-3): India’s heaviest launch vehicle, used for launching heavier satellites and for the Gaganyaan mission.
- NewSpace India Limited (NSIL): The commercial arm of ISRO, responsible for marketing and selling ISRO’s technologies and services.
- EOS-N1: Earth Observation Satellite - N1, built by DRDO.
- Gaganyaan: India’s first human spaceflight mission.
Mains Critical Analysis
The repeated failures of the PSLV missions expose critical vulnerabilities within ISRO’s operational framework. A PESTLE analysis reveals the following:
- Political: The pressure to demonstrate success in the space sector, particularly given geopolitical competition, may be influencing decision-making.
- Economic: Failures impact commercial viability, increase insurance costs, and potentially hinder India’s ambition to become a major player in the global space launch market.
- Social: Lack of transparency erodes public trust in ISRO and raises questions about accountability.
- Technological: The recurring third-stage anomaly points to a specific technological weakness that needs to be addressed.
- Legal: Potential legal ramifications related to commercial contracts and insurance claims.
- Environmental: Space debris generated from failed launches poses an environmental hazard.
The core issue is a potential trade-off between launch cadence and quality assurance. While maintaining a high launch rate is important, it should not come at the expense of thorough investigation and corrective action. The critical gap lies in the lack of a robust and transparent failure analysis process. The withholding of the FAC report for the C61 mission is particularly concerning, as it prevents independent verification and learning from past mistakes.
Value Addition
- Failure Analysis Committee (FAC): A committee constituted by ISRO to investigate launch failures and identify the root causes.
- Space Insurance: Insurance policies that cover the financial risks associated with space launches, including damage to the satellite and launch vehicle.
- Quote: “Transparency is the cornerstone of trust, and trust is the foundation of any successful organization.” – Unknown
Context & Linkages
After year of successes, ISRO set for big leaps
This past article highlights ISRO’s successes in 2025, including the LVM-3 M6 mission. The contrast between this success and the recent PSLV failures underscores the need for consistent quality control across all of ISRO’s launch vehicles. While the LVM-3 demonstrates increasing reliability, the PSLV’s issues suggest that attention needs to be focused on maintaining the standards of older, established technologies alongside the development of new ones.
The Way Forward
- Release the FAC Report: The Department of Space should immediately release the FAC report for the PSLV-C61 mission to ensure transparency and facilitate independent scrutiny.
- Strengthen Quality Assurance: Implement a more rigorous and independent quality assurance process, including enhanced testing and inspection procedures.
- Prioritize Safety over Cadence: Re-evaluate launch schedules to prioritize safety and thorough investigation over maintaining a high launch cadence.
- Invest in Redundancy: Explore options for incorporating redundancy into critical systems to mitigate the impact of potential failures.
- Foster a Culture of Openness: Encourage a culture of scientific openness and transparency within ISRO, where mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities.