The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has suffered a significant setback early in the 2026 space calendar with the failure of its Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C62). The mission failed to deploy its 16-satellite payload into the intended Sun-synchronous orbit following an anomaly during the third stage of flight, raising serious questions about reliability in one of India’s most trusted launch systems.
The 44.4-metre-tall rocket lifted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre at 10:18 am, carrying the Earth observation satellite EOS-N1 as its primary payload, along with several co-passenger satellites, including DRDO’s Anvesha and AayulSAT, India’s first in-orbit refuelling satellite. While the launch and initial ascent proceeded nominally, mission controllers detected disturbances during the third stage (PS3), resulting in a deviation from the planned trajectory. All 16 satellites are now presumed lost and are likely to remain as orbital debris.
PSLV-C62 Mission Snapshot
|
Parameter |
Details |
|
Launch Vehicle |
PSLV-C62 (Four-stage configuration) |
|
Primary Payload |
EOS-N1 (Earth Observation Satellite) |
|
Total Payloads |
16 satellites |
|
Failure Phase |
Third Stage (PS3) |
|
Mission Outcome |
Failure; loss of all payloads |
A Concerning Pattern Emerges
The PSLV-C62 failure follows the unsuccessful PSLV-C61 mission in May 2025, marking two consecutive failures for a launch vehicle long regarded as ISRO’s most reliable platform. Such back-to-back failures are unprecedented in the PSLV programme’s history and suggest deeper structural issues rather than isolated anomalies.
When failures recur in the same subsystem, they indicate potential weaknesses in research validation, testing protocols, or manufacturing oversight—areas that have traditionally been ISRO’s strengths.
Third-Stage Anomalies Under Scrutiny
Both the C61 and C62 missions encountered problems during the third stage. In the earlier failure, ISRO cited a motor pressure issue. The recurrence of a third-stage anomaly suggests that corrective actions undertaken after 2025 may not have fully addressed underlying design or performance limitations.
In aerospace engineering, repeated failure in a specific stage typically signals a mismatch between theoretical modelling and real-world operational conditions, particularly in solid-motor performance and stress response.
Innovation Fatigue and Platform Over-Reliance
PSLV has remained operationally relevant for decades, but its core architecture has seen limited fundamental redesign. While incremental improvements have been introduced, the continued reliance on legacy systems—especially in the solid-motor third stage—raises concerns about innovation fatigue.
ISRO’s expanding mission portfolio, including lunar, solar, and interplanetary projects, may have diverted attention and resources away from sustained modernisation of its core launch vehicles. The absence of advanced real-time diagnostic systems further highlights the gap between ambition and execution.
Commercial Pressures and Quality Control
PSLV-C62 carried payloads from domestic startups and international partners, reflecting ISRO’s growing role in the global commercial launch market. However, increased launch cadence and commercial commitments can place pressure on quality assurance processes.
The observed trajectory deviation points to potential inconsistencies in propulsion performance or navigation-control integration—areas that depend heavily on exhaustive pre-flight testing and cross-verification.
The Broader Cost of Failure
Beyond the immediate financial loss, the conversion of operational satellites into space debris has long-term implications. ISRO’s reputation as a provider of low-cost, high-reliability launch services is a critical asset, particularly as competition intensifies globally.
Two consecutive failures risk undermining confidence among international clients and domestic stakeholders at a time when India is positioning itself as a major commercial space hub.
Need for Structural Introspection
ISRO Chairman V. Narayanan has ordered a detailed failure analysis, but technical reviews alone may not be sufficient. The PSLV-C62 failure highlights the need to bridge gaps between design validation, manufacturing precision, and in-flight performance assessment.
Addressing vulnerabilities in third-stage propulsion and strengthening quality-testing protocols will be essential if ISRO is to restore confidence in the PSLV platform and maintain its standing in the global launch market.
