PSLV Failure Patterns: Analyzing the Correlation with Indian Primary Payloads
- lior herman
- Oct 23
- 4 min read
By Meidad Pariente, ORBITInsure Co-Founder and CSO
The Indian Space Research Organization's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), performing with an impressive 95% success rate, is globally esteemed for its reliable record and versatility in deploying a range of satellites. Yet, upon examining the launch anomaly history, a striking correlation surfaces. ALL PSLV performance-related failures and partial failures have occurred on flights with Indian primary payloads, never on foreign or mixed rideshare missions.
Is this an anacdotal coincidance?
This hazard concentration intrigues both risk assessors and industry observers, demanding rigorous analysis for both statistical and practical implications.
So we used our AI Agent, to do some research for us.The exact prompt was "Check all PSLV launch failures starting PSLV-C01 mission, and for each failure find the Root cause, The payload (satellites) onboard, date of failure, and what exactly failed (which part, which stage, etc…).For each mission failed, check weather the consecutive mission (return To Flight) was a success."
The analysis result is summarized in the following table
PSLV Failure Table: All Known Cases
Mission | Date | Payload | Country | What Failed | Root Cause/Details | Return to Flight (next PSLV) |
PSLV-D1 | 20 Sep 1993 | IRS-1E | India | 2nd-to-3rd stage separation, attitude control | Programming error in autopilot, retro malfunction | Success PSLV-D2 (15 Oct 1994) |
PSLV-C1 | 29 Sep 1997 | IRS-1D | India | 4th stage under-performance; orbit too low | Success - PSLV-C2 (26 May 1999) | |
PSLV-C39 | 31 Aug 2017 | IRNSS-1H | India | Fairing (heat shield) separation failed | Payload trapped, separation system malfunction | SuccessPSLV-C40 (12 Jan 2018) |
PSLV-C61 | 18 May 2025 | EOS-09 | India | Third stage (pressure drop, loss of control) | Chamber pressure loss; failed orbit injection | Not launched yet (as of Oct 2025) |
The table shows, that All PSLV failures, including the partial IRS-1D mission, occurred with Indian remote sensing or navigation satellites as primaries, and in none of the above cases were foreign or commercial rideshare satellites present.
Technical and Programmatic Discussion
The root causes of PSLV failures have varied: from digital autopilot errors (1993), 4th-stage pressure regulation anomalies (1997), fairing separation (2017), to propulsion shortfall (2025). These are distinctly technical in origin, not related to payload type or satellite national identity.
We asked Warren™, our AI agnet, which I have trained, for the past 12 months, to analyze and estimate why PSLV launch failures always happen when the payload is Indian and not foreign, or during rideshare mission, and reviewed the outcome.
According to the analysis, There are three potentially contributory factors that might increase risk exposure to national missions:
· Oversight and Review Layers: Rideshare missions, especially those with foreign client satellites, bring extra institutional checks and international audits, producing more rigorous testing and documentation cycles. I personally experienced, during PSLV-C38 mission on June 23rd, 2017, which I have attended, as a customer with three satellites onboard, how the ISRO chairman, the honorable, Dr. A. S. Kiran Kumar, thanked each foreign customer in person, thanking us for choosing PSLV to launch our mission. This gesture reflected how important the rideshare missions are to the country and the Indian Space Research Organization.
· Timeline Pressures for Domestic Milestones: Missions carrying only Indian satellites may at times be scheduled under strict policy timelines, sometimes compressing integration or test durations relative to internationally contracted rideshares.
· Risk Distribution: All failures to date occurred before or outside India’s major rideshare commercialization period, suggesting the most complex and diversified missions have, ironically, benefited from collective vigilance and redundancy.
Is the Pattern Statistically Meaningful?
While meaningful on its face, the failure clustering on Indian-only flights is likely a statistical artifact compounded by launch cadence and client mix: PSLV’s rideshare manifest only became prominent in the 2000s, after greater procedural rigor and organizational learning. The rocket’s overall technical performance, with just one partial and three total failures out of dozens of flights, remains strong by international standards.
Risk Guidance for Underwriters
For space underwriters, the record does not support a higher inherent risk to Indian-payload PSLV missions; rather, it highlights the value of independent validation, extended test cycles, and lessons learned sharing between government and commercial operations. The inclusion of all partial and total failures, particularly PSLV-C1, helps anchor an accurate actuarial risk baseline.
Conclusion: Is the Correlation Merely Coincidence?
While the PSLV’s exemplary performance record and the technical explanations for each failure seem to suggest a series of unfortunate, unrelated events, the persistent pattern, where all significant failures and even partial failures occur exclusively on missions with Indian primary payloads, warrants further scrutiny. Is it truly just statistical noise, or might there be underlying cultural, organizational, or programmatic factors influencing risk on domestically prioritized launches?
Could there, for instance, be nuanced differences in mission assurance, independent review, or launch readiness between government and commercial rideshare flights?
Does the weight of national expectation or bureaucratic urgency subtly impact integration or quality control for missions of domestic importance? Or does the meticulous legal, contractual, and reputational scrutiny applied to rideshare, and international launches provide a hidden layer of protection that escapes purely technical root cause analysis?
It is the writers personal opinion, that until a deeper, more longitudinal study is performed, one that blends engineering audit with organizational behavior analysis, this correlation should remain a topic of thoughtful vigilance for the industry. Perhaps, in the mysteries hidden behind telemetry data and launch outcomes, there is more than meets the eye.
Comments