The refusal of the Ministry of Science and Technology to publicly release the Failure Analysis Committee report on the PSLV-C61 and C62 mission failures has triggered unease among scientists and industry stakeholders.

Union Minister Jitendra Singh confirmed that anomalies had been detected and experts were working on solutions, but he stated that the findings could not be shared on a public platform. This decision has been criticised as counterproductive, particularly when the government is actively encouraging private sector participation in India’s space program.

Officials at IN-SPACe noted that the policy push includes transferring technologies such as the Launch Vehicle Mark-3 to private companies, following similar moves for PSLV and SSLV.

However, scientists argue that withholding basic technical information undermines confidence. One senior scientist remarked that while industry was invited because ISRO had demonstrated strength and was preparing to focus on advanced projects, secrecy over fundamental failures discourages investment.

The PSLV-C61 mission on 18 May 2025 failed due to a pressure drop in the third-stage motor chamber, preventing the EOS-09 satellite from reaching its intended 534 km Sun Synchronous Polar Orbit. The nozzle throat material was identified as the cause, with imported graphite proving unsuitable.

For the subsequent PSLV-C62 mission in January 2026, ISRO switched to a carbon-composite component, but this too failed, raising doubts about whether the material was fully qualified for industrial use.

Scientists stressed that no Indian mission is entirely indigenous, as some components are imported. Global supply chain disruptions have not only delayed missions but also contributed to secrecy in reporting failures.

Another senior ISRO scientist questioned whether the diagnosis of the C-61 failure was correct, whether the listed solutions were sufficient, and whether unresolved issues carried over into the C-62 mission. He emphasised that only proven technologies can be transferred to private industry.

The PSLV-C61, India’s 101st mission and PSLV’s 63rd flight, launched from Sriharikota but failed when pressure fell in the third-stage motor case.

The EOS-09 satellite was unable to separate into its designated orbit.

The PSLV-C62, carrying 16 satellites including a foreign Earth Observation Satellite, also failed when disturbances during the third stage caused deviation from the intended flight path. These consecutive setbacks have raised serious concerns about ISRO’s transparency and its readiness to transfer launch vehicle technologies to private players.

The debate highlights a tension between India’s ambition to expand private participation in its space program and the need for openness about technical failures. Without clarity and accountability, scientists warn that industry confidence will erode, jeopardising future collaborations and investments.

Agencies