Model Answer

For over two decades, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) has been the backbone of India’s space programme, earning global credibility through a long record of successful missions and cost-effective access to space. However, the back-to-back failures of PSLV-C61 (May 2025) and PSLV-C62 (January 2026)—both linked to anomalies in the third stage—have raised serious concerns about reliability, institutional transparency, and the commercial positioning of India’s launch services.

Implications of repeated launch vehicle failures:

• From a technological standpoint, recurrence of similar failure symptoms—loss of chamber pressure in C61 and roll-rate disturbance in C62—suggests unresolved systemic issues in design, quality control, or integration processes. Such failures challenge the perception of PSLV as a “proven” platform and indicate the need for deeper root-cause analysis rather than isolated corrective measures.
• Economically, these failures directly affect India’s commercial launch ambitions, particularly as ISRO, through NewSpace India Limited (NSIL), seeks to market the PSLV globally. International satellite operators and insurers closely monitor launch reliability. Repeated failures are likely to increase insurance premiums, reduce client confidence, and make Indian launch services less competitive compared to private players such as SpaceX or Arianespace.
• Strategically, the failure also impacts national missions, as evidenced by the loss of the DRDO-built EOS-N1 satellite. Such setbacks can delay defence, communication, and earth observation capabilities, with cascading effects on national security and disaster management.

Importance of institutional transparency and failure analysis

In high-risk technological domains like space, failure is an accepted part of innovation, but credibility depends on how institutions respond to failure. ISRO has historically upheld scientific openness by publicly releasing Failure Analysis Committee (FAC) reports, allowing peer scrutiny and institutional learning. The non-disclosure of the FAC report for PSLV-C61, followed by the decision to proceed with C62, raises concerns about prioritising launch schedules and commercial optics over systemic learning.

Transparency serves multiple purposes:

• Restores public and international trust by demonstrating accountability.
• Strengthens internal quality assurance through documented lessons learned.
• Signals professionalism to insurers and clients, mitigating reputational damage.

In contrast, opacity risks eroding ISRO’s culture of scientific rigor and could undermine its long-term credibility, especially when transitioning from a purely strategic agency to a commercial service provider.

Balancing commercialisation and scientific ethos

The commercialisation of PSLV under NSIL represents a necessary evolution of India’s space ecosystem. However, commercial success cannot come at the cost of institutional values. The demonstrated reliability of the LVM-3, including the M6 mission in December 2025, shows that ISRO is capable of maintaining high standards when governance, testing, and transparency are aligned.

Conclusion

The PSLV-C61 and C62 failures are not merely technical setbacks but institutional stress tests for ISRO’s governance framework in a commercialising space environment. Releasing FAC reports, strengthening independent quality audits, and reinforcing a culture of openness are essential to restoring confidence. In the long run, transparency is not a liability but a strategic asset for sustaining India’s leadership in the global space economy.