SearchTodayMainsPrelimsSubjectCSAT

Repeat PSLV Failures Raise Questions on ISRO’s Quality Assurance

Examining PSLV-C61 and C62 mission failures, transparency gaps, and implications for India’s space credibility
SuryaSurya
••4 mins read
PSLV-C62 Failure Raises Quality Assurance, Transparency Concerns India
Not Started

1. Context: PSLV and India’s Space Credibility

The Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) has long been regarded as the backbone of India’s space programme, symbolising reliability, cost-effectiveness, and technological maturity. Its consistent performance enabled India to build credibility as a dependable launch service provider in both strategic and commercial domains.

In recent years, PSLV has also been positioned as a commercial product in the global launch market. This transition elevates the importance of reliability, transparency, and risk management, as international clients and insurers closely track failure histories.

Repeated mission failures in such a mature system therefore carry implications beyond a single launch, affecting India’s institutional credibility and strategic standing in the global space ecosystem.

In high-technology governance, the reliability of mature systems underpins national credibility; ignoring this risks reputational erosion that cannot be offset by past successes.

2. Issue: Repeated Mission Failures and Systemic Signals

The failure of the PSLV-C62 mission in January 2026, following the PSLV-C61 failure in May 2025, highlights a troubling pattern. Both missions experienced anomalies in the third stage, suggesting unresolved systemic issues rather than isolated technical glitches.

Given the maturity of PSLV technology, such repeat failures point towards weaknesses in quality assurance, testing, or verification processes. These failures undermine the assumption that legacy systems are inherently low-risk.

If such warning signals are not addressed comprehensively, they increase the probability of recurrence and institutional complacency.

In mature technological systems, repetition of failure usually indicates process breakdowns; overlooking this leads to cascading operational risks.

3. Transparency and Failure Analysis Culture

Failure analysis is a cornerstone of scientific and engineering progress, especially in high-risk sectors like space. Transparent diagnosis enables organisational learning, peer scrutiny, and systemic correction.

In the PSLV-C61 case, the Failure Analysis Committee (FAC) report was not made public and was instead submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office. This marked a departure from ISRO’s traditional culture of openness.

Limited disclosure constrains external review and weakens trust, both within the scientific community and among global partners.

Transparency in failure management strengthens institutional learning; secrecy, if routine, risks normalising unresolved flaws.

4. Governance Choices and Leadership Priorities

The article points to a broader shift in ISRO’s organisational culture, from scientific openness towards a more guarded and bureaucratic posture. This shift is attributed to leadership decisions prioritising launch cadence and operational continuity.

While maintaining a high frequency of launches is important for national and commercial objectives, proceeding without fully closing failure loops raises concerns about governance priorities.

Balancing speed with safety is a critical leadership challenge in complex technological institutions.

Governance failures often arise not from lack of expertise, but from skewed priorities; ignoring caution in favour of pace magnifies systemic vulnerability.

5. Commercialisation and Risk Implications

Under NewSpace India Limited (NSIL), PSLV has been marketed as a commercial launch vehicle in a competitive global market. In such an environment, failure histories directly influence insurance risk assessments.

Repeated failures prompt international insurers to reassess the PSLV’s risk profile, potentially increasing insurance premiums. This directly affects launch affordability and competitiveness.

Consequently, technological failures translate into financial and strategic costs for India’s space ambitions.

Impacts:

  • Higher insurance premiums for PSLV launches
  • Reduced price competitiveness in the global launch market
  • Strategic embarrassment for a country aspiring to be a net provider in space

In commercialised public technology, reliability is inseparable from economic viability; ignoring market perceptions undermines strategic objectives.

6. Way Forward: Rebuilding Quality Assurance and Trust

The article underscores the need for ISRO to rebuild robust quality assurance and verification protocols, particularly for legacy systems. Mature technology demands continual vigilance, not relaxed oversight.

Reaffirming transparency in failure analysis can restore institutional credibility and reinforce a culture of learning. This is essential not only for technical correction but also for maintaining stakeholder trust.

Strengthening governance processes will enable India to sustain its dual goals of strategic autonomy and commercial competitiveness in space.

“In science, there is no such thing as a setback. There are only lessons.” — APJ Abdul Kalam

Long-term technological leadership depends on learning from failure; ignoring this converts temporary setbacks into structural decline.

Conclusion

The repeated failures of PSLV missions highlight deeper governance and quality assurance challenges within India’s space programme. Addressing these issues through transparent failure analysis, strengthened processes, and balanced leadership priorities is essential to safeguard India’s long-term space ambitions and global credibility.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

The Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) is a medium-lift launch vehicle developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). It has been a key driver of India’s space ambitions since its first successful launch in 1994. The PSLV is termed the 'workhorse' because it has delivered a high launch success rate for a variety of satellites including Earth observation, navigation, and scientific payloads.

Its technological maturity, modular configuration (standard and XL versions), and cost-effectiveness make it versatile for both national and commercial missions. Over decades, the PSLV has helped India gain credibility in the global space launch market, positioning ISRO as a reliable service provider for small and medium satellites worldwide.

The PSLV is a mature and technologically proven launch vehicle. Both the C61 and C62 missions failed at the third stage, with the C61 experiencing a loss of chamber pressure and the C62 showing a roll rate disturbance. These anomalies suggest recurring operational or manufacturing issues rather than fundamental design flaws.

The handling of the C61 Failure Analysis Committee (FAC) report, which remains classified with the Prime Minister’s Office, points to potential lapses in quality assurance, inspection, or material integrity. Recurring anomalies in a technically mature system often indicate systemic procedural gaps, supply chain vulnerabilities, or oversight errors rather than conceptual flaws in rocket design.

By withholding the FAC report for the C61 mission, ISRO has created uncertainty around the root causes of the failure. Transparency in aerospace failures is crucial because stakeholders — including taxpayers, commercial clients, and international insurers — rely on accurate risk assessments to make informed decisions.

In the commercial launch market, the PSLV is offered under NewSpace India Limited (NSIL). Lack of clarity about technical issues could lead insurers to increase premiums, making the PSLV less cost-competitive globally. Public confidence is also affected, as taxpayers fund these missions and deserve accountability for both scientific and financial outcomes. Releasing the FAC report could restore trust and guide improvements in quality assurance protocols.

The PSLV-C61 mission failed due to a sudden drop in chamber pressure in the third stage (PS3), leading to mission abort. The PSLV-C62 exhibited a 'roll rate disturbance,' suggesting a similar third-stage issue, possibly involving side-thrust from a nozzle or casing irregularity.

These symptoms indicate that the PS3 solid motor, while technologically mature, may have structural or material vulnerabilities that affect thrust stability. Recurring stage-specific anomalies highlight the need for reinforced quality control, improved pre-launch testing, and closer monitoring of stage components, rather than assuming isolated random errors.

Consecutive PSLV failures have multifaceted implications:

  • Strategic: The PSLV carries both civilian and defence-related payloads, including satellites built by DRDO. Recurring failures can delay national security projects and scientific missions.
  • Commercial: Under NewSpace India Limited, PSLV competes in the international launch market. Failures may lead to higher insurance premiums, reduced client confidence, and potential loss of market share to other providers like SpaceX or Arianespace.
  • Reputational: ISRO’s image as a reliable space agency could be undermined, affecting future collaborations and funding priorities.
Addressing these challenges requires transparent investigation, rigorous quality assurance, and communication with all stakeholders.

Globally, agencies like NASA and ESA have adopted transparency and systematic post-failure analysis to maintain credibility. For example:

  • After the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (1986), NASA conducted a full investigation through the Rogers Commission, identified the O-ring flaw, and implemented extensive design and process reforms.
  • The ESA Ariane 5 maiden flight (1996) failure led to a detailed public report revealing software errors, after which Ariane 5 achieved high reliability and regained global market confidence.
These examples show that public disclosure of failures, combined with corrective action, strengthens trust and reassures commercial stakeholders — a lesson ISRO could follow by releasing the C61 FAC report.

The PSLV-C62 carried the EOS-N1 satellite with strategic applications, which may have pressured ISRO to maintain launch schedules. However, proceeding without fully disclosing and analyzing the C61 failure risks repeating errors.

Balancing strategic urgency with technical caution requires:

  • Ensuring all post-failure investigations are thoroughly completed and lessons are integrated into new missions.
  • Prioritizing safety over schedule, especially for payloads with national security or commercial importance.
  • Engaging independent audits and peer reviews for sensitive missions.
Adopting these measures will allow ISRO to uphold national objectives while preserving credibility, safety, and market competitiveness.

Attribution

Original content sources and authors

The Hindu
The Hindu
Sign in to track your reading progress

Comments (0)

Please sign in to comment

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!