ISRO staff question trajectory of space privatisation, want chief to clarify

Why in the News

Key employee associations at the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) have written to the ISRO chairperson seeking a written clarification on whether ISRO’s exit from launch vehicle manufacture is an approved decision of the Government of India, the Space Commission or the Department of Space. The letter follows a public statement by the chairperson of the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Centre (IN-SPACe), the nodal body under the Department of Space set up in 2020 to open India’s space sector to private participation, that ISRO will eventually not manufacture any launch vehicles. The associations say the statement was never followed by any formal communication from the Department of Space explaining the policy, its legal basis, its timeline or its effect on staff. The letter was sent hours after ISRO launched an earth observation satellite aboard a Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV), ending a months-long hiatus. The dispute is between a promotion body announcing the direction of travel in public and a workforce with no document to read it in.

What did the statement claim about ISRO’s future work?

1. Launch vehicles move out: ISRO will eventually not manufacture any launch vehicles, and that work will be done by the private sector or a public sector undertaking.
2. Routine satellites move out too: ISRO will not build what were described as day in day out satellites.
3. What is retained is narrowly drawn: ISRO will build satellites for special purposes, for orbits meant for scientific research, or to develop new technology that is then transferred to the private sector.

What are the employee associations asking for?

1. The status of the statement: The letter asks the chairperson to issue a written clarification on whether the statements represent an approved decision of the Government of India, the Space Commission or the Department of Space.
2. Who has signed it: It carries signatures of representatives from across ISRO’s centres, including the Space Applications Centre and the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre.
3. What the letter asks to be defined: It seeks answers on ISRO’s future role as a public organisation, on whether public sector undertakings will also be excluded from manufacturing work, on the safeguards available to current employees, and on how publicly funded technologies are being transferred to private companies.
4. A consultation demand: It asks whether employee associations will be consulted before any irreversible decision affecting the agency’s structure, mandate or staffing is finalised.

Why do the associations treat this as a threat to the organisation?

1. The activities named are the core, not the periphery: The associations describe those activities as ISRO’s core competence, and say withdrawing from them threatens the organisation’s long-term viability.
2. Career expectations are unsettled: Employees who built careers around ISRO’s stability and public character now face uncertainty about what the organisation will be.
3. Recruitment is the compounding effect: Recruitment is already limited by vacancies and attrition, and a shrinking intake discourages young professionals who see ISRO as a respected public sector career path.

How far has the transfer to industry already gone?

1. The stated policy since 2020: The government’s approach has been for ISRO to mentor emerging companies and gradually shift routine work to them, with ISRO focusing on missions of scientific and strategic significance.
2. The transfers already made: ISRO has transferred around 120 technologies to industry, including the Small Satellite Launch Vehicle and the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV).
3. Infrastructure is being built for the same segment: The new spaceport at Kulasekharapatnam is expected to focus on small satellite launches, a segment where private capability is already fairly advanced.

Where does expert opinion sit on the direction?

1. The opening is defended as overdue: The Deputy Director General of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses said the sector’s opening up was overdue and could have helped India capture a larger share of the global market sooner.
2. Some shifting is treated as natural: With ISRO focused on Gaganyaan, the Bharatiya Antariksh Station and a crewed lunar mission, some functions would move to private players as a matter of course.
3. The limit drawn is on launch: Launch services and vehicle development remain core to ISRO’s mandate, and ISRO should remain capable of launching some of its own satellites, especially the strategic ones.
4. The counter-example cited is American: The stated caution is that India should not reach the position of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which is completely dependent on a single commercial provider for its launches.

Challenges to India’s space sector privatisation

1. The opening rests on policy, not statute: Authorisation, liability and licensing of private space activity are governed by executive policy documents rather than by a law passed by Parliament. Eg. A draft Space Activities Bill was circulated for comment in 2017 and was never introduced, and the Indian Space Policy, 2023 has filled that space instead.
   The Fix: Enact a space activities law fixing licensing conditions, third-party liability and government indemnity, so operators and the regulator work to statutory terms.
2. Promotion and authorisation sit in the same body: The agency that promotes private entry also authorises it, and the incumbent it is displacing reports to the same department. Eg. IN-SPACe, ISRO and NewSpace India Limited all sit under the Department of Space.
   The Fix: Separate the authorisation function into a body with its own statutory mandate, leaving promotion and hand-holding with IN-SPACe.
3. Publicly funded designs move out without a published valuation: Technology developed at public cost is handed to firms without the consideration or the continuing support obligations being disclosed. Eg. Production of the Small Satellite Launch Vehicle was transferred through a competitive bid won by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
   The Fix: Publish the consideration, the support commitment and the reciprocal obligations for every transfer above a stated value.
4. Capability decays when it is not exercised: Launch vehicle engineering skill is retained by building vehicles, not by supervising others building them. Eg. India’s cryogenic upper stage took roughly two decades to reach operational service after technology transfer from Russia was blocked in the 1990s.
   The Fix: Attach a minimum in-house build and integration requirement to each new vehicle programme so design teams retain hands-on work.

Conclusion

A structural change of this size is being read off a public remark rather than a departmental order, and that is the substance of the objection rather than the policy direction itself. Employees can contest a document. They cannot contest a statement that nobody has confirmed to be policy. The written clarification the letter seeks is the marker to watch. Whether it names the Space Commission as the deciding authority, or declines to, will show where the decision on ISRO’s manufacturing role actually sits.

Back2Basics: IN-SPACe

1. It is an autonomous single-window agency under the Department of Space, announced in 2020 and set up to enable private participation in space activities.
2. It authorises and supervises space activities carried out by non-government entities in India.
3. It arranges the sharing of ISRO’s facilities, expertise and technical data with private operators.
4. It is distinct from NewSpace India Limited, which is the commercial arm that markets and sells ISRO’s products and services.

Matching Previous Year Question

“Consider the following statements about involvement of private entities in India’s space programme: 1. IN-SPACe is an autonomous agency formed to facilitate participation of private entities. 2. Agnikul Cosmos launched the world’s first flight using 3D-printed rocket engine. 3. Skyroot Aerospace has developed liquid fuel for GSLV. (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 2 only (d) 1, 2 and 3”