India’s Recent PSLV Setbacks: What They Mean—and What Needs to Happen Next

 

India’s Recent PSLV Setbacks: What They Mean—and What Needs to Happen Next

India’s space programme has long been admired for its engineering discipline and resilience. However, the back-to-back mid-flight anomalies of PSLV-C61 (May 2025) and PSLV-C62 (January 2026) mark an unusual and concerning phase for the country’s most reliable launch vehicle.

Both missions resulted in the loss of high-value Earth-observation satellites intended for strategic and national security use, directly affecting India’s space-based surveillance and navigation capabilities.

A Pattern That Deserves Attention

Between 2017 and 2026, Indian Space Research Organisation conducted 44 missions, of which five failed. What stands out is that all five failures were linked to national security or strategic payloads, and three occurred within just one year (Jan 2025–Jan 2026).

Individually, each failure had a different technical cause. Taken together, their clustering raises legitimate questions—not of intent or interference, but of systemic stress, process gaps, or quality assurance blind spots that must be addressed head-on.

The Cost Goes Beyond Money

These failures are expensive—each mission likely costs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, and re-flying them requires similar investment again. But the larger cost is strategic delay:

• Slower deployment of surveillance, navigation, and hyperspectral imaging capabilities

• Dependence on foreign commercial satellite services in the interim

• Congestion of future launch schedules

• Opportunity loss for India’s rapidly growing private space ecosystem

Importantly, these failures occurred in rocket stages, subsystems, and satellite platforms that have been in service for decades, reinforcing a hard truth of aerospace engineering: rocketry is a zero-error business.

PSLV-C62: What We Know So Far

The PSLV-C62 mission, carrying the EOS-N1 (Anvesha) hyperspectral satellite along with multiple commercial payloads, deviated from its planned trajectory following disturbances near the end of the third stage (PS3). ISRO acknowledged the anomaly quickly and initiated data analysis.

While terminology like “disturbance” or “deviation” is technically accurate, clarity matters. An unaccomplished mission is a failure, and acknowledging it plainly is the first step toward faster learning and stronger recovery.

Resilience Across the Ecosystem

Encouragingly, India’s private space companies responded with maturity and resolve. Firms like Dhruva Space and Skyroot Aerospace publicly emphasized learning, readiness to re-manifest payloads, and confidence in ISRO’s ability to bounce back.

This response reflects a maturing space ecosystem—one that understands both the technical and emotional risks inherent in launch activity.

It is also worth noting that LVM3 (Gaganyaan-class launcher) continues to maintain a 100% success record, offering reassurance that reliability still exists within the broader launch portfolio.

Where Transparency Matters Most

One issue drawing increasing attention is the absence of publicly released Failure Analysis Committee (FAC) reports for recent missions such as PSLV-C61 and NVS-02. Historically, ISRO’s willingness to publish detailed failure analyses has been a cornerstone of its credibility and learning culture.

At a time when:

• PSLV is marketed globally for rideshare launches

• Strategic missions are increasing in complexity

• Human spaceflight (Gaganyaan) is approaching

restoring transparent, detailed failure reporting is essential—not for blame, but for trust, accountability, and systemic improvement.

What Needs to Be Done—Clearly and Urgently

This moment calls for course correction, not defensiveness. Key priorities should include:

1. Clear root-cause identification of PS3 anomalies and confirmation that corrective actions fully break the failure chain

2. Public release of failure analysis summaries, as was done historically

3. Independent cross-reviews of solid motor, cryogenic, and satellite propulsion subsystems

4. Stronger configuration control and quality audits for long-serving “legacy” components

5. Faster replacement strategies for lost strategic capabilities (SAR, hyperspectral, NavIC)

6. Reduced public signalling of sensitive mission details, balancing transparency with security

Looking Ahead

Space is unforgiving. Setbacks are part of the journey—but how openly and decisively an organisation responds defines its future.

India’s space programme has recovered from worse situations in the past, precisely because it combined engineering rigour, intellectual openness, and institutional humility. Those strengths are still present—and must now be reaffirmed.

The setback stings. The questions are uncomfortable. But the path forward is clear: acknowledge failure, learn faster, fix decisively, and move ahead with confidence.

After all, it’s still rocket science—and that has never been easy.