Why ISRO Staff Are Worried About ISRO's Future

A rocket designed and developed by ISRO is being transferred to industry for production.
Nine ISRO associations want to know whether this is simply an effort to expand India's industrial capacity or part of a larger policy under which ISRO itself will eventually withdraw from rocket manufacturing.

Nine employee associations representing the interests of thousands of employees of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) seem to have finally woken up from their slumber and questioned the role of the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe) in transferring rocket-manufacturing technologies to the private sector, apparently to the exclusion of the public sector.

They have a fundamental question for the Department of Space: Has the Government actually approved this policy?

If so, the associations want to know when the decision was taken, by which authority and what the approved policy actually says.

The nine associations have addressed a detailed representation to Dr V Narayanan, secretary, Department of Space, chairman of the Space Commission and chairman of ISRO, raising questions about the future role of ISRO, technology transfer, rocket manufacturing, launch infrastructure and the fate of its employees.

The timing of the representation is significant.

It comes several days after media reports and comments by retired ISRO chairman, including G Madhavan Nair, questioned aspects of IN-SPACe's expanding role in technology transfer and other matters.

What appears to have finally shaken the nine associations is a reported statement by IN-SPACe Chairman Dr Pawan Kumar Goenka: 'Eventually, ISRO will not make any launch vehicles and will not manufacture any launch vehicles. That will all be done by the private sector or PSU.'

That statement has raised a much larger question inside the organisation: If ISRO stops making rockets, what exactly will ISRO do?

PSLV and LVM3 to move towards private industry

IN-SPACe has invited bids from the Indian private sector to acquire the technology to manufacture two of ISRO's major rockets -- the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) and LVM3, earlier called GSLV-Mk III.

The move follows the technology-transfer process for ISRO's Small Satellite Launch Vehicle (SSLV), for which an agreement has already been signed with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, a PSU.

The emerging pattern is therefore unmistakable.

A rocket designed and developed by ISRO is being transferred to industry for production. But the nine associations want to know whether this is simply an effort to expand India's industrial capacity or part of a larger policy under which ISRO itself will eventually withdraw from rocket manufacturing.

That distinction is crucial.

GSLV-Mk II Exception

There is an interesting twist.

While SSLV has moved towards industry and PSLV and LVM3 are being offered for technology transfer, ISRO's GSLV-Mk II has been left out of the exercise.

Instead, the rocket could be on its way to retirement.

"As per plans, the GSLV-Mk II rocket will be retired after the approved launches are completed," a former top ISRO official told this correspondent, requesting anonymity.

"It is not economical to operate GSLV-Mk II due to its cost and complexity. Future launches to be managed with LVM3," the retired official added.

The number of approved GSLV-Mk II launches is understood to be about five at present.

• Why ISRO May Retire GSLV-MK

At the same time, ISRO is developing a new-generation heavy rocket, currently referred to as Soorya.

SSLV is moving to industry. PSLV and LVM3 are being opened for technology transfer. GSLV-Mk II is likely to retire. Soorya is under development.

What will ISRO continue to build itself?

Is IN-SPACe stepping into NSIL's shoes?

The debate is not confined to who manufactures the rockets.

Retired ISRO officials are also questioning whether IN-SPACe is moving beyond its regulatory and promotional mandate and entering the commercialisation space traditionally assigned to NewSpace India Ltd (NSIL).

Former ISRO chairman G Madhavan Nair has argued that NSIL was created specifically to commercialise ISRO's services, technologies and rockets, while IN-SPACe's role is essentially regulatory and facilitative, particularly for the private sector.

'While the sectoral regulator can be independent, ISRO, NSIL and industrialisation should be under one roof with the unity of direction and command being a must. NSIL can form a joint venture with the interested parties instead of transferring the technologies,' Nair said.

A retired top ISRO official, who did not want to be named, put it more directly: "IN-SPACe is basically an authorisation agency as the name suggests. ISRO has the technology and NSIL is mandated to exploit it commercially."

Another former ISRO official said: "IN-SPACe should focus on policies that would facilitate easy access to ISRO facilities for the private space sector players, faster frequency clearances and other aspects. Commercialisation of ISRO's assets should be done by NSIL."

IN-SPACe sees its role differently

IN-SPACe itself describes its mandate more broadly.

According to the organisation, it is responsible to 'promote, enable authorize and supervise' various space activities of non-government enterprises, including building launch vehicles and satellites, providing space-based services, sharing space infrastructure and premises under the control of the Department of Space/ISRO, and establishing new space infrastructure and facilities.

IN-SPACe is of the view that its actions are in line with the government's space sector reforms and the Indian Space Policy-2023, which opened space operations to private sector participation.

IN-SPACe has been involved in the transfer of technology for ISRO's SSLV to HAL for ₹511 crore and is now inviting bids for the transfer of technologies for PSLV and LVM3.

The question being raised by retired officials is therefore not whether IN-SPACe has a role in enabling private participation. It clearly does.

The question is whether technology commercialisation itself should fall within that role -- or whether it should remain primarily with NSIL.

More than a manufacturing exercise

For the employee associations, however, the issue goes beyond the institutional turf battle between ISRO, NSIL and IN-SPACe.

For them, launch vehicles are not merely products that can be manufactured under licence.

The design, development, fabrication, integration, testing and launch of rockets represent decades of accumulated institutional knowledge and constitute the core competence of ISRO.

A gradual withdrawal of ISRO from these activities, the associations fear, could reduce in-house work and affect manpower requirements across scientific, technical, administrative, stores, procurement, quality, safety and industrial cadres.

The concern is therefore not simply about who owns a factory.

It is about whether ISRO could eventually lose the capability to build and operate the very launch vehicles it has spent decades developing.

And what happens to the employees?

For the thousands of ISRO employees represented by the associations, the issue is also deeply personal.

If activities currently performed within ISRO move outside, what happens to the people performing those activities?

The associations fear that employees working in ISRO's development and production facilities could be rendered surplus, redeployed or left with reduced opportunities while private companies perform similar functions using technology developed by ISRO.

Promotion and career progression could also suffer if the in-house workload shrinks.

So could recruitment.

If ISRO progressively withdraws from manufacturing and other operational activities, the associations fear that recruitment to Group A, B and C positions could decline further.

For many young engineers, scientists and technicians, ISRO is not simply another employer. It is a public institution representing scientific excellence and national service.

If the organisation stops building rockets, will it also stop hiring the people who would have built them?

The bigger taxpayer question

The debate goes beyond ISRO employees.

India's launch vehicles were developed over decades using public money, public infrastructure and the collective effort of generations of ISRO scientists, engineers and other employees.

The associations therefore argue that ISRO-developed technology is a national asset.

Its transfer to private industry, they say, must be transparent and accountable and should take into consideration strategic capability, safety, quality and employment.

The associations have also raised a fundamental question about what happens to the public infrastructure and knowledge accumulated over decades once private industry enters the picture.

'The institutional arrangement under which publicly created technology, test facilities, launch complexes and know-how -- built with taxpayer funds and the labour of generations of ISRO employees-are being transferred or opened to private operation, and the role of NSIL vis-a-vis IN-SPACe in such transfers,' the letter notes.

That is perhaps one of the most consequential questions in the entire representation.

The issue is not whether Indian industry should benefit from ISRO's technological capabilities.

The issue is how much of that capability should remain within the public institution that created it -- and under whose authority public assets and know-how are being opened to private operators.

Where is the government policy?

This is perhaps the most pointed aspect of the representation.

The associations say that statements regarding technology transfer, private manufacture, satellite production and private operation of launch infrastructure have received wide publicity.

But there has been no corresponding official communication from the Department of Space to its employees explaining the policy, its legal and administrative basis, its phasing or its consequences for the existing workforce.

The associations therefore want the Department of Space to spell out the policy.

If the government has approved the eventual withdrawal of ISRO from rocket manufacturing, they want the date, authority and text of the decision.

If it has not, they want to know whether the reported statements about ISRO's future role represent government policy or merely the vision of IN-SPACe.

Don't let uncertainty become policy

The nine associations have made their representation in what they describe as a 'constructive and democratic spirit'.

They have also stressed that their loyalty to ISRO and India's space programme is unquestionable.

Precisely because of that loyalty, they say, they consider it their duty to seek clarity before uncertainty becomes irreversible policy.

India's space programme has already crossed the line from a predominantly government-driven model to one in which private industry has an increasingly important role.

The question now is not whether the private sector should enter the space business. It already has.

The question is whether ISRO can build a powerful private space industry without surrendering the institutional capabilities that made India a spacefaring nation in the first place.

After years of relative silence, the nine associations have finally asked that question.