If nanosatellites are the future, why is ISRO not designing any of its own? And other questions about a ‘record-breaking’ launch that has reignited widespread chest-thumping.
‘Tis the season to celebrate ISRO again. But pardon me if I don’t get up from my seat for this anthem. ISRO’s competence is to be expected, and only higher achievements merit widespread celebration. On February 15, ISRO set a new record by launching 104 satellites from one single launch vehicle. This is about three times what anyone had done before.
Make no mistake – this is a feat made possible by good engineering, a focus on precision, and extensive simulations and modelling. The control systems teams at ISRO seem to be getting better and better at what they do. Evidently, the PSLV is a dependable launch vehicle, usually referred to by news articles as ISRO’s “workhorse”.
In response, there has been a big round of celebrations online and across the country. Lots of unqualified chest-thumping and proclamations about Indian greatness in engineering and in general. Typically, Indians could not unequivocally call themselves the best after any space-related achievement because many missions and countries have been there before us. Therefore, the standard narrative was that India may not be the best but certainly the least expensive and most efficient at getting to space. The ‘low cost’ narrative has reigned supreme.
This time, there is a new twist to the low-cost narrative: that India can be a global leader in launching micro-satellites. From the Hindustan Times, February 15:
The real significance of the launch, therefore, lies in the fact that it allows ISRO to test its capabilities for multiple launches of small satellites. This is crucial if India wants to grab a slice of the global market for nano and micro-satellites, which is set to grow close to $3 billion in the next three years. ISRO sources point out that some 3,000 satellites will be ready for launch in the next 10 years for navigation, maritime, surveillance and other space-based applications.
From The Ken, February 15:
With Isro planning to launch the PSLV more frequently, the rocket could be well placed to take advantage of the rapidly escalating numbers of small satellites that are looking to get into orbit.
Last year, the PSLV was second only to America’s Atlas V rocket in the number of 1–50kg class small satellites launched, according to the ‘2017 Nano/Microsatellite Market Forecast’ from SpaceWorks Enterprises, a US-based company that prepares assessments of global satellite activity. It predicts that nearly 2,400 such satellites “will require a launch from 2017 through 2023.”
Permit me to be the Grinch on this. Nobody likes damp squibs when others are happily celebrating, but a few points need to be raised.
First: If nanosatellites are the future, why is ISRO only launching others’ nanosatellites and not designing any of its own? If recent advancements in electronics have in fact made it possible to reduce the size of many satellites, shouldn’t ISRO also do what it can as well?
Indeed, the PSLV C37 mission carried the INS 1A and 1B nanosatellites manufactured by ISRO. Before this, a microsatellite called IMS-1 was launched in 2008 as secondary payload onboard the PSLV C9 mission. However, this is slow progress. Policies by the Department of Space continue to exclude India’s private sector from designing and launching nanosatellites at a more vigorous, and competitive, pace – even as it keeps the nation reliant on ISRO as the sole launch-services provider for all its space needs.
After all, every kilogram of matter that gets transported to the low-Earth orbit costs several thousand dollars, and it is important optimise this number as soon as possible to make launches more frequent, if not more accessible. It is true that not all satellites can be reduced in size: transponders, high-resolution cameras and many other units still remain large, and high quality and precision should trump size when they are necessary. Even so, nanosatellites afford their own, unique opportunities.
Second: Is the PSLV really cost-effective and competitive? We really have no idea. As I wrote in 2013,
[W]hen a French scientist was asked just after the 100th ISRO mission launched two French satellites, he remarked that they chose PSLV not because it was cheaper, but because the time slot available was convenient and because it was of comparable quality to other launchers.
It is clear that the PSLV is reliable and it is also obvious that ISRO will not get any business if they do not price their services competitively in the global market. But as we learn in economics 101, price is not the same as cost. ISRO has never put out detailed reports on how ISRO’s cost per kilogram to low-Earth orbit compares to that of other space agencies. To the best of this author’s knowledge, only SpaceX and other space agencies are actively trying to reduce the cost of payloads – by having some of the earlier rocket stages return to ground for reuse, for example.
Third: As Gopal N Raj in The Ken noted, while nanosatellites are set to grow exponentially in number, they will not in terms of revenue for ISRO. A few, large satellite launches will still net higher revenues.
Fourth: We need to remember that we do not have a working alternative to the PSLV yet, and we aren’t doing enough space launches. ISRO has/is a national monopoly, even if it competes with other players globally. And there are signs that ISRO is suffering from the usual problems at the highest level that monopolies tend to face: lethargy.
There is little evidence that ISRO’s space activities are sufficient for a growing economy like India’s. We need more commercial launches per year, more satellites in space per year (doesn’t matter who launches them) and more scientific missions per year. We need an ISRO with growing ambitions, and after the success of the Mars Orbiter Mission, there appears to be some bureaucratic action, with incremental target settings and no real moonshot.
In fact, the raison d’être of a state-run space programme is to do outrageous things that cannot be done by markets, to go beyond what is commercially feasible. A commercial satellite launch isn’t about “boldly [going] where no mortal has gone before”, to use Neil deGrasse Tyson’s adaptation of a popular phrase. ISRO needs to focus on the Moon and Mars and beyond and open up commercial satellite launches to a domestic market.
The positive, long-term societal benefit of ‘crazy’ space exploration is well documented. In an era where individuals like Elon Musk can aspire to go to Mars, ISRO can aim even higher. (And ask for the budgets it needs.)
Fifth: Finally, can we please set a higher bar for ISRO? ISRO is certainly a world-class organisation, it is competent and among the very best. This is a little unusual for a country that has had to routinely deal with the mediocre. Successful launches of the PSLV are no longer newsworthy; they are to be expected of a competent space agency. A country that has successfully launched a probe into martian orbit doesn’t need to giddily celebrate every time we send a tonne of electronics a couple hundred kilometres above ground.
– Your friendly neighbourhood Space-Grinch.
This article was originally published on Indian National Interest and is reproduced here with permission. Pavan Srinath is a Fellow and faculty member at the Takshashila Institution. He anchors the Indian National Interest platform.
Note: This article was edited at 11:15 am on February 17 to include more information about India’s nanosatellites.