India’s space programme stands at a pivotal moment. Reports emerging in mid-2026 indicate that more than 100 scientists and engineers have resigned or taken voluntary retirement from the Indian Space Research Organisation in recent months. Some accounts put the figure closer to 120, with significant numbers leaving key centres such as the U R Rao Satellite Centre in Bengaluru and the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre. Among those departing are experienced professionals linked to priority programmes, including elements of the Gaganyaan human spaceflight mission. The Department of Space has responded by tightening exit procedures, directing centres not to process resignations or voluntary retirements of Group-A scientists on nationally important missions in a routine manner.
The immediate reasons are familiar. Private space startups offer substantially higher salaries, faster decision-making, equity opportunities, and the chance to work on commercial products rather than long government timelines. Companies such as Skyroot Aerospace and Agnikul Cosmos have raised capital, conducted test flights, and created genuine alternatives to a pure ISRO career for the first time in India’s history. After decades in which ISRO was essentially the only serious employer of space talent, the market has opened. What looks like a brain drain is, in part, the predictable consequence of policy success.
India deliberately began liberalising the sector around 2020. The creation of IN-SPACe as a promoter and authoriser, the establishment of NewSpace India Limited to commercialise ISRO technologies, and the formal Indian Space Policy of 2023 were designed to bring non-government entities into the full value chain of space activities. The goal was clear: expand India’s share of the global space economy, reduce costs through competition, and free ISRO to concentrate on strategic and scientific missions. Talent movement was an expected side-effect. The question now is whether the transition will strengthen the overall ecosystem or weaken the public agency that still carries the nation’s most ambitious projects.
A useful parallel exists in the United States four decades earlier. In the early 1980s the American space programme was still heavily government-dominated. NASA and the Department of Defense controlled most launch activity. Private companies faced regulatory uncertainty and limited access to government facilities and technology. On 30 October 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed the Commercial Space Launch Act. The legislation established a clear licensing regime under the Department of Transportation, limited regulation to matters of public safety, national security, and international obligations, and explicitly encouraged private development of expendable launch vehicles and related services.
The Act did not instantly create a thriving commercial industry. Progress was gradual and required subsequent policy refinements, including later amendments and programmes such as Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and Commercial Crew. Over time, however, the structural shift proved decisive. Private companies gained the legal and operational space to innovate. NASA evolved from being primarily an operator of launch systems into a sophisticated customer and technical overseer. Today a large majority of NASA’s budget—recent figures put the share of total spending flowing to external contracts at around 73 to 85 per cent—is spent with private industry. The agency defines requirements, funds development, maintains rigorous oversight, and retains responsibility for mission success, while companies design, build, and often operate the hardware.
This model produced several important outcomes for talent and capability. First, it turned workforce mobility into a feature rather than a pure loss. Engineers and scientists move between NASA centres, traditional contractors, and pure commercial firms. Experience gained in one setting frequently returns to the others. Second, it created a clearer division of labour. Government retained ownership of high-risk science, deep-space exploration, and national-security priorities that markets alone would under-invest in. Industry scaled routine access to orbit, drove down costs through reusable systems, and competed on commercial terms. Third, the overall size of the sector expanded dramatically. A larger industry generates more total employment, higher compensation in the private sphere, and more career pathways. NASA continues to attract talent through unique missions, scientific prestige, and relative stability even as industry offers speed and financial upside.
The results are visible in launch cadence. The United States now conducts far more orbital launches than any other country, the great majority of them by private operators. NASA remains central to planetary science, astrophysics, and human exploration programmes such as Artemis, but it no longer tries to monopolise every operational activity.
India’s situation is not identical. ISRO has historically operated with tighter budgets, a stronger culture of in-house development, and a broader developmental mandate that includes applications for agriculture, disaster management, and connectivity. The private sector is still young. Yet the core dynamic is similar. When a government opens a previously closed domain, talent follows opportunity. Attempting to freeze the old model by administrative restrictions on resignations addresses the symptom rather than the structural shift already underway.
Several lessons from the American experience appear relevant. Tightening exit rules may protect specific missions in the short term, but it does not solve underlying issues of compensation, career progression, and organisational agility. A more durable approach involves accelerating the redefinition of ISRO’s role. The agency can concentrate on strategic launch vehicles, human spaceflight, planetary missions, and advanced research while progressively transferring mature operational systems and routine satellite production to industry through competitive contracts and technology transfer. Clearer pathways for collaboration—joint development, shared facilities, and structured knowledge exchange—can keep former ISRO talent connected to national priorities even after they leave government service.
Compensation and non-monetary incentives also matter. Public-sector pay scales are constrained, yet mission prestige, intellectual challenge, and the chance to work on first-of-their-kind projects remain powerful attractors. Strengthening those elements, improving internal mobility, and ensuring that critical teams are not chronically understaffed can reduce attrition of the most experienced people. At the same time, the government can continue expanding the private ecosystem so that the total number of high-quality space jobs in India grows faster than the rate of exits from ISRO.
The current wave of resignations has understandably caused concern. Flagship programmes require continuity of expertise. Yet history suggests that the greater risk lies in resisting the transition rather than managing it. The United States did not solve its talent challenges by locking scientists inside NASA. It solved them by building a larger, more dynamic system in which government and industry reinforced each other. India has already taken the first policy steps in the same direction. The challenge now is to complete the institutional and cultural adjustment so that the movement of scientists becomes a sign of a maturing sector rather than a threat to national capability.
If handled with clarity of purpose, the present moment can mark the beginning of a stronger Indian space enterprise—one in which ISRO remains the centre of excellence for science and strategy while a competitive private industry multiplies the country’s overall capacity to reach orbit and beyond. The American experience of the past forty years shows that such an outcome is possible. The next few years will determine whether India follows a similar trajectory.
About The Author
