SearchTodayMainsPrelimsSubjectCSAT

Investigation into PSLV Rocket Failures: Key Insights

A committee will explore systemic issues responsible for PSLV's repeated failures and their impact on India's space ambitions.
G
Gopi
••5 mins read
External panel to probe systemic causes behind ISRO’s successive PSLV failures
Not Started

1. Context: Successive Failures of PSLV and Constitution of External Committee

India’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), historically regarded as ISRO’s most reliable workhorse, has recently faced two consecutive mission failures. The PSLV-C61 (May 18, 2025) and PSLV-C62 (January 12, 2026) missions both failed due to the third stage not igniting, leading to the loss of strategic and commercial satellites.

In response, a national-level expert committee comprising external experts, including K. VijayRaghavan (former Principal Scientific Advisor) and S. Somanath (former ISRO Chairman), has been constituted to examine “systemic issues” underlying these failures. This marks a shift from ISRO’s traditional internal Failure Analysis Committees to an external “third-party appraisal”.

The move reflects concerns that repeated technical anomalies may indicate deeper organisational or process-related weaknesses, particularly in manufacturing, procurement, assembly, and accountability mechanisms.

Key Data:

  • PSLV operational since 1993
  • Over 90% success rate
  • Nearly 350 satellites placed in orbit
  • 2 consecutive failures (2025 & 2026)
  • 18 launches scheduled in 2026, including 6 private sector launches
  • 3 major foreign launches scheduled next year (Japan, USA, France)

Repeated failure in a mature launch system suggests that the issue may extend beyond isolated technical defects to systemic governance or process vulnerabilities. If unaddressed, such patterns can erode institutional credibility and affect India’s strategic and commercial space ambitions.

2. Nature of the Institutional Shift: From Technical Fault to Systemic Audit

Traditionally, ISRO’s response to failures involved an internal Failure Analysis Committee (FAC) tasked with reconstructing the chain of events and recommending corrective measures before resuming flights. Such reports were typically publicised to maintain transparency and institutional learning.

However, in the case of PSLV-C61 and PSLV-C62:

  • The FAC report on the 2025 failure was submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office.
  • Its details were not made public.
  • A broader external committee is now examining “organisational” dimensions.

This reflects a recognition that the issue may involve:

  • Process integrity
  • Quality assurance mechanisms
  • Vendor ecosystem management
  • Internal accountability frameworks

The involvement of the National Security Advisor and the Space Commission signals that the failures have strategic implications beyond routine technical setbacks.

“It isn’t that we (the ISRO) are so unwise that we could not detect the reason for failures… this time, we are having a third party [appraisal] to create confidence.” — Jitendra Singh, Minister of State for Science and Technology

The shift from internal review to external appraisal indicates an attempt to strengthen public trust and institutional legitimacy. If systemic audits are avoided in high-stakes sectors, latent organisational weaknesses can accumulate, leading to reputational and strategic setbacks.

3. Expanding Space Ecosystem and Accountability Challenges

India’s space ecosystem has evolved from a purely state-driven model to one increasingly involving private companies in manufacturing, integration, and launch services. This diversification introduces new governance challenges.

The committee is expected to examine:

  • Manufacturing processes
  • Procurement standards
  • Component assembly protocols
  • Quality control in outsourced systems
  • Accountability mechanisms across public-private interfaces

Given that multiple ISRO rockets share common components and subsystems, any systemic lapse in PSLV may have cross-platform implications for other launch vehicles.

Governance Concerns:

  • Fragmented accountability in supply chains
  • Quality assurance across vendors
  • Integration risks in public-private collaboration
  • Transparency in failure reporting

The credibility of India’s commercial space programme depends not only on technical competence but also on institutional robustness.

As the space sector liberalises, governance complexity increases. Without strong regulatory oversight and quality control across the ecosystem, technological reliability may be undermined by organisational fragmentation.

4. Strategic, Commercial and International Implications

The PSLV is not merely a launch vehicle; it is central to India’s:

  • Strategic satellite deployment
  • Commercial launch services
  • International space partnerships
  • Emerging space economy ambitions

The loss of EOS-09 in 2025 had strategic implications, as it was intended for government needs. Repeated failures could impact:

  • Defence preparedness
  • Earth observation capabilities
  • Disaster management systems
  • Commercial revenue streams

However, the Minister has stated that:

  • No private satellite clients have withdrawn.
  • Foreign launch partners (Japan, USA, France) have not expressed apprehension.

This indicates that India’s long-term credibility remains intact, but sustained reliability is critical to maintaining competitive advantage in the global launch market.

In strategic sectors such as space, reliability translates into geopolitical capital and economic opportunity. Repeated failures, if not transparently addressed, can gradually erode both deterrence credibility and market competitiveness.

5. Transparency, Public Trust and Institutional Learning

Historically, ISRO’s credibility has been strengthened by openness in acknowledging failures and publishing findings. The absence of public disclosure of the 2025 Failure Analysis Committee report marks a departure from this tradition.

Transparency in high-technology governance serves multiple purposes:

  • Enhances public trust
  • Encourages institutional learning
  • Signals accountability
  • Strengthens international confidence

However, sensitive missions may involve classified components, creating a tension between transparency and national security.

The external committee’s findings, expected before April, may determine the balance between technical correction and systemic reform.

In democratic governance, institutional transparency reinforces legitimacy. If failure analysis is perceived as opaque, it may create speculation and weaken trust in otherwise strong institutions.

6. Broader Governance Lessons for High-Technology Sectors

The PSLV episode highlights key governance lessons relevant beyond the space sector:

  • Mature systems are not immune to failure.
  • Institutional complacency can emerge after prolonged success.
  • Expanding ecosystems require updated regulatory oversight.
  • Accountability mechanisms must evolve with structural changes.

In sectors like defence, nuclear energy, digital infrastructure, and aviation, systemic audits and third-party reviews are critical to resilience.

Therefore, the episode underscores the need for:

  • Continuous process audits
  • Independent oversight in critical sectors
  • Clear lines of accountability
  • Integration of public-private quality frameworks

Technological excellence must be matched by organisational resilience. Ignoring systemic audits in critical infrastructure sectors can allow small process failures to escalate into strategic vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

The probe into PSLV’s successive failures marks an important institutional moment for India’s space programme. While technical anomalies are inevitable in complex systems, systemic vulnerabilities must be addressed proactively.

If the external review strengthens governance, accountability, and transparency across ISRO’s expanding ecosystem, it can reinforce India’s position as a reliable space power. In the long run, institutional adaptability—not just technological capability—will determine the sustainability of India’s space ambitions.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

The constitution of an external national-level expert committee to examine the successive PSLV failures marks an important shift in ISRO’s institutional response to mission setbacks. Traditionally, ISRO relied on its internal Failure Analysis Committee (FAC), composed of in-house experts and select academic specialists, to reconstruct technical causes and recommend corrective measures. However, the recent move indicates that the concern extends beyond isolated technical faults to possible systemic or organisational issues.

By including eminent scientists such as former Principal Scientific Advisor K. VijayRaghavan and former ISRO Chairman S. Somanath, the probe gains credibility, independence, and strategic depth. The mandate reportedly includes reviewing processes in manufacturing, procurement, assembly, and accountability frameworks—areas that become more complex with the growing participation of private players in India’s space ecosystem.

This step reflects principles of institutional transparency, third-party appraisal, and public accountability. In high-technology sectors where national security and international reputation are at stake, external review mechanisms help restore confidence among stakeholders, including private satellite clients and foreign governments.

The PSLV has historically been regarded as ISRO’s workhorse launch vehicle, maintaining a success rate of over 90% since 1993 and placing nearly 350 satellites into orbit. Its reliability has underpinned India’s commercial launch services and strategic satellite deployments. Therefore, consecutive failures—PSLV-C61 and PSLV-C62—particularly involving the third stage not igniting, raise concerns about systemic vulnerabilities rather than isolated anomalies.

Such failures can have implications for national security, especially when strategic satellites like EOS-09 are involved. They also affect India’s credibility in the competitive global launch market, where reliability is a key determinant of client trust. With upcoming foreign launches from Japan, the U.S., and France, reputational stakes are high.

However, the government’s assertion that no private or foreign clients have withdrawn suggests confidence in ISRO’s long-term track record. The broader concern, therefore, is not merely technical rectification but safeguarding India’s image as a reliable, cost-effective space power.

India’s space sector has undergone significant transformation with policy reforms encouraging private participation in satellite manufacturing, component supply, and launch services. While this enhances innovation and capacity expansion, it also introduces complexities in supply-chain management and accountability mechanisms.

The PSLV probe reportedly includes scrutiny of manufacturing, procurement, and assembly processes—areas where private vendors may play roles. In such a distributed ecosystem, identifying responsibility for component failure requires robust quality assurance systems, contractual clarity, and traceability mechanisms. Unlike earlier fully in-house production models, the current framework demands tighter regulatory oversight and coordination.

Therefore, the committee’s focus on “systemic issues” reflects the need for institutional reforms to match the evolving ecosystem. Establishing clear accountability chains, independent audits, and standardised certification processes will be essential to sustain reliability while fostering private sector growth.

Space missions are inherently high-risk endeavours involving complex engineering systems operating under extreme conditions. Even advanced agencies such as NASA and Roscosmos have experienced mission failures. Therefore, occasional setbacks do not automatically imply organisational weakness.

However, successive failures involving similar stages—as seen in PSLV-C61 and PSLV-C62—raise legitimate concerns about possible systemic lapses in quality assurance, testing protocols, or decision-making processes. The fact that the earlier Failure Analysis Committee report was not publicly released has also raised questions about transparency and institutional learning.

A balanced perspective suggests that while technical anomalies are part of space exploration, repeated failures necessitate deeper introspection. The decision to initiate a third-party appraisal indicates institutional maturity, recognising that credibility depends not only on technical expertise but also on transparent governance and adaptive reforms.

The PSLV failures offer a case study in managing crises within a strategic and high-technology sector. ISRO’s long-standing credibility is built on consistent performance, public communication, and scientific transparency. Historically, Failure Analysis Committee findings were made public, reinforcing accountability and public trust.

In the present case, the involvement of the National Security Advisor and the constitution of an external committee reflect the high strategic stakes. Transparent investigation, timely corrective measures, and clear communication are essential to reassure domestic stakeholders and international clients. The Minister’s statement emphasising continued client confidence indicates an attempt at proactive reputation management.

This episode underscores that in sectors linked to national prestige and economic opportunity, technical competence must be complemented by institutional openness and robust governance. Effective crisis management can convert setbacks into opportunities for systemic strengthening, thereby reinforcing long-term credibility.

Attribution

Original content sources and authors

JK
Jacob Koshy
TH
The Hindu
Sign in to track your reading progress

Comments (0)

Please sign in to comment

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!