On February 20, Nasa did over an hour-long press conference to share the results of the Wet Test conducted ahead of the Moon launch. A day later, they shared the details of new issues, accepting that the mission would be delayed. Hours after that, Nasa chief Jared Issacman came out with a detailed analysis, sharing what went wrong and what happens next for the mega Moon rocket.
Just days before that, he had stepped on the dias to accept full responsibility for the Starliner fiasco that left Sunita Williams stranded in space for nearly a year, dubbing it a failure of leadership and engineering.
What he was doing was ensuring the public trusts this publicly funded organisation. For decades, space agencies have depended not only on rockets and research but also on public trust for their survival.
Both Nasa and the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) are publicly funded institutions. Their missions are paid for by taxpayers. Yet when it comes to public communication, the two agencies operate very differently.
Nasa has turned transparency into a strategic tool.
Take the Artemis program. From the earliest design reviews to launch delays, hardware issues and budget revisions, Nasa has shared extensive updates. Technical briefings are streamed live. Senior officials hold detailed press conferences. Engineers walk journalists through problems, whether it is a fuel leak during a wet dress rehearsal or a heat shield anomaly after re-entry.
Even setbacks are dissected in public with charts, diagrams and mission timelines.
The result is not just information, it is engagement. The public understands why delays happen. Students can follow the engineering logic. Analysts can debate design choices. Transparency builds credibility, even when missions slip.
Isro, by contrast, often remains guarded.
This is not to question its capability. Isro has delivered extraordinary achievements, from Mars orbit insertion to record satellite launches. But communication frequently feels limited to brief press releases or short statements after key milestones.
When missions are delayed, reasons are sometimes vaguely described as “technical issues.” When setbacks occur, detailed root-cause explanations are rare or delayed.
Consider human spaceflight preparations under Gaganyaan. While broad timelines are shared, in-depth technical breakdowns are sparse compared to Nasa’s crewed mission briefings. Similarly, when a PSLV mission faces anomalies, detailed failure analysis is not always immediately available to the public.
This gap matters.
In an era of instant information, silence creates speculation. Limited updates leave space for rumours. More importantly, it reduces public ownership of the program. A space mission should feel like a national journey, not an internal project unfolding behind closed doors.
Transparency does not weaken an agency. It strengthens it.
Nasa’s openness does not prevent criticism, but it builds resilience. When problems are explained clearly, trust grows. When budgets are justified openly, support deepens. When engineers speak directly to citizens, science becomes relatable.
Isro stands at a defining moment. With ambitions spanning human spaceflight, lunar exploration and deep-space missions, public interest in India’s space program is high. There is hunger for details, for diagrams, mission architecture breakdowns, astronaut training updates and honest conversations about challenges.
This is not a call for sensationalism. Nor is it a critique of competence. It is a call for conversation.
Both Nasa and Isro are funded by citizens. Transparency is not a favour; it is a responsibility. And in opening up more, Isro may find that public excitement, trust and global admiration rise alongside its rockets.
