Two failures too many for ISRO

The Tribune

Core Issue and Context

The article responds to multiple recent launch failures involving ISRO’s PSLV/Gaganyaan-linked missions, framing them not as isolated technical setbacks but as a pattern with reputational, strategic, and commercial consequences. The editorial tone marks a departure from celebratory space reportage towards institutional accountability and performance scrutiny.

This is significant because ISRO traditionally enjoys high public trust and media deference.

 Key Arguments Presented

Repetition of failures, not singular anomaly
– Emphasis on two failures within a short span
– Argues this crosses the threshold from “acceptable risk” to “systemic concern”

Credibility and reliability at stake
– ISRO’s strength historically lay in reliability, not cutting-edge novelty
– Repeated failures undermine confidence of foreign and commercial clients

Impact on strategic missions
– Failures cast a shadow on future crewed missions
– Raises implicit concerns about readiness for complex, human-rated launches

Silence and communication gap
– Criticises limited transparency and delayed clarity from ISRO
– Suggests institutional reluctance to openly acknowledge errors

Global competition context
– Space sector is no longer monopolised by national agencies
– Private players and rival countries raise the cost of failure

 Author’s Stance

The stance is constructively critical, not adversarial.
– Acknowledges ISRO’s legacy and achievements
– But clearly signals that past success cannot shield present underperformance

The article adopts a public-interest accountability lens, asserting that national prestige institutions must be subject to scrutiny, especially when taxpayer-funded.

 Biases and Editorial Leanings

Accountability bias (intentional)
– Strong emphasis on failures may overshadow long-term success record
– Selective focus on recent setbacks rather than lifecycle reliability

Reformist bias
– Implicit belief that criticism will trigger institutional correction

Strategic-national bias
– Concern framed largely around national prestige and foreign perception
– Less attention to internal R&D learning curves

Notably, there is no sensationalism; the critique remains sober and institutional.

 Pros and Cons of the Argument

Pros
– Breaks media culture of unquestioning celebration
– Forces debate on quality control and systems engineering
– Aligns space policy with standards of global commercial credibility
– Encourages transparency in public scientific institutions

Cons
– Limited technical nuance; failure causation simplified for readers
– Risks feeding public pessimism if not contextualised
– Underplays that failure rates rise with mission complexity

 Policy Implications

Institutional governance
– Need for stronger internal review and independent audit mechanisms

Communication policy
– Transparent, timely disclosure protocols post-failure

Space commercialisation
– Reliability is crucial for NewSpace India Ltd and private launch markets

Human spaceflight programme
– Necessitates slower, more conservative timelines

 Real-World Impact

Short term
– Reputational dent among international clients
– Heightened scrutiny from Parliament, media, and strategic community

Medium term
– Possible recalibration of launch schedules
– Greater emphasis on ground testing and redundancy

Long term
– Healthier institutional culture if criticism is absorbed constructively
– Stronger credibility if ISRO demonstrates learning and correction

 UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper III (Science & Technology)
– Space technology, mission reliability, strategic capabilities

GS Paper II (Governance & Accountability)
– Transparency in public institutions, institutional responsibility

Essay Paper
– “Failure as an instrument of learning”
– “Accountability in institutions of national pride”

 Concluding Assessment

The editorial performs a necessary democratic function. It neither undermines ISRO nor glorifies failure; instead, it reasserts the principle that excellence must be continuously earned. By highlighting repeated setbacks, it nudges the organisation away from reputational comfort and towards performance introspection.

 Future Perspective

For ISRO, the way forward lies not in defensive nationalism but in:
– Open acknowledgment of technical lapses
– Strengthening systems engineering culture
– Aligning ambition with reliability

Bottom line:
Failures do not weaken institutions. Unquestioned failures do.