1. Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science (ROSES) – 2018

2. Agenda What’s new in ROSES-2018 (not much):
- individual program elements
- ROSES-wide policy changes
- keeping track of changes after release
Reminder of changes from recent years
Updates to the guidebook for proposers.
Volunteer reviewer web forms

3. Links for What's New in ROSES-2018
See Section I(c) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and
Budget FAQ:
Data management plans FAQ:
RSS feed of ROSES amendments:
Instructions for Google due date calendar is at:
PRC restrictions continue:

4. What's New: Appendix A (Earth Science)
Appendix A (Earth Science) always has the largest number of program elements and, as always, programs come and go and many of the program element designations change from year to year e.g., Atmospheric Composition: Modeling and Analysis was A.22 in ROSES-2017 and it was not solicited, but this year it is solicited and it's A.19. Please review the lists of program elements in Table 2 and Table 3 of ROSES carefully.
Earth Science Applications: Water Resources uses a binding two-Step process.

5. What's New: Appendix B (Heliophysics)
The Early Career Investigator Program (B.10 ECIP) is solicited this year (it was released as draft last year).
Space Weather Operations to Research (B.12 H-SWO2R) was introduced late in ROSES-2017 as a pilot program and it is anticipated that it will continue.
Heliophysics Technology and Instrument Development for Science (B.3 H-TIDeS) has undergone major revision and
This year B.8 the Guest Investigator program is focused on Global Observations of Limb and Disk and Ionospheric Connection Explorer (GOLD/ICON).
All program elements in Appendix B require a Step-1 proposal, so keep an eye on those Step-1 proposal due dates.

6. What's New: B.3 H-TIDeS Revision
The biggest change is that projects that selected LCAS and CubeSat Flight projects with a total life-cycle cost > $3.5 million will be funded initially for a 4-month $40K formulation phase, at the end of which they will submit a concept study report for evaluation and down selection.
In H-TIDeS B.3 last year there was a section for each of the types of proposals and for each type there were largely redundant sub-sections (e.g., was LCAS Step-2 Proposal Content, was ITD Step-2 Proposal Content, and was LNAPP Step-2 Proposal Content). Now there is just one section on Step-2 Proposal Content.

7. What's New: Appendix C (Planetary)
A new opportunity in program element C.22 Development and Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation Program (DALI). Its like MatISSE but specifically for the moon.
C.17 Planetary Major Equipment and Facilities and C.21 the New Early Career Fellowship Program are TBD while they are undergoing restructuring.
There are rumors that the return to the return to the moon may result in other lunar programs, either in ROSES or elsewhere, but no guarantees to the lunatics.

8. What's New: Appendix D (Astrophysics)
New opportunities in program element D.13 LISA Preparatory Science
D.14 SOFIA 4th generation instrumentation (3rd gen was in 2015).
Plans to release D.12 Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) Guest Observer - Cycle 1.
NOTE: Although, in general, NOIs are optional, they are mandatory for D.3 APRA, D.13 LISA, and will be for D.8 SAT (and maybe others too). They will be labeled "mandatory" in Table 2 and Table 3.

9. Mandatory NOIs

10. What's New: Other Changes
In general, the "Co-I/Science PI" will be treated the same as the PI see FAQ #9 on this topic.
Competitive quotes are not required for items or services costing up to $10K if management (at the organization receiving the grant) determines that the price is reasonable.
Section III(a) "Eligibility of Applicants" of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation has been updated to more accurately reflect NASA policy on participation by non-U.S. organizations.
Most ROSES programs now exclude contracts because it would not be appropriate for the nature of the work solicited.

11. What's New: Other Changes
The Section on CubeSats that says "CubeSats may be built as a single unit (1U), weighing less than 1.33 kg, or combined in units of two, three, six (2x1x3 form factor)…" now says "and, where allowed (e.g., D.3 APRA), twelve (2x2x3 form factor)."
A request: only use the Program Specific Data field for people not listed as team members on the cover page as an absolute last resort. We need everyone on the cover page so that we can sort for organizational conflict of interest. You should only use this if your Co-I is in Antarctica and cant confirm online.

12. Changes and Additions to ROSES after release:
Bold and red in Tables 2 and 3
Due date delayed 
Big change

13. Changes and Additions to ROSES after release: NSPIRES mailing lists
Any other new program elements added, TBD programs that are finalized, or major changes in scope (or due date) will be announced by an Amendment to ROSES. You will get an if you subscribe to the SMD mailing list in NSPIRES under "Account Management".

14. Changes and Additions to ROSES after release: ROSES RSS Feed
RSS feed is at
The instructions for how to subscribe to the ROSES-2018 due date Google calendar is in the SARA library at

15. Changes and Additions to ROSES after release
You are here 
RSS feed is at
The instructions for how to subscribe to the ROSES-2018 due date Google calendar is in the SARA library at
Google due date calendar

16. Reminders of changes from recent ROSES
RSS feed is at
The instructions for how to subscribe to the ROSES-2018 due date Google calendar is in the SARA library at

17. Redaction Reminder There are four things that every proposal needs:
Cover page budget with everything in it, this will be redacted automatically.
Table of work effort in the main proposal PDF with person time but no $. A simple example is given in ROSES and a template is available at:
Budget details and justification for things (not people) in the main proposal PDF.
Separately upload a "Total" budget that will not be seen by reviewers. Here you put complete detailed budget and phase NASA CS salary by fiscal year.
Generic whats new is at but the one about budgets is

18. Cover Page Budget
There are three lines for Co-Is at other organizations. First, put funds for Co-I government organizations in lines 8 & 9. Put the funds that pass through your organization in line 5.
Redacted{
Redacted{
From

19. Cover Page Budget
I used Section F line 5, the generic subaward line, for my $60K subcontract to Miskatonic University, not that you can tell, because I could not modify the description of line 5. That this is for M-U will only become apparent later when you read the actual proposal.
Next, I used customizable line 8 for the $150K that will be sent directly to my Co-I at Naval Research Lab and I entered "NRL portion of this award" in the description.
In line 9 I put the GSFC portion of the award and labeled it appropriately.
When the proposal is evaluated by the peer review panel they will not see any of the $ numbers in the Personnel Sections or in Section F lines 5, 8 & 9, all of that will be automatically redacted.
This is all on the web at click on FAQs and
From

20. Budget Details/Justification
Include costs of things (including those in a sub award) in the budget detail/justification in the main proposal PDF e.g., explain why does your Co-I need a $3.5K MDO4000C oscilloscope, vs. a $450 TBS1000B? Also, make reference to the subaward e.g., "0.5 FTE are allocated for Co-I Dr. H. West (Miskatonic, Arkham, Mass) as can be seen the summary table of work effort and full costs are in Section F line 5 of the cover page budget and in the separately uploaded Total Budget pdf file. Costs for labor, fringe and overhead are omitted consistent with ROSES instructions."
This is all on the web at click on FAQs and

21. Budget Details/Justification
Ditto consultants, no salary, fringe and overhead costs in the main proposal PDF. In the budget justification in the main proposal PDF you explain only the part that is not labor e.g., "The total cost of the consultants Goldshtik and Whorfin of the Banzai Institute is provided in the NSPIRES cover page budget in Section F line 3. The consultancy includes the cost of the rental of an oscillation overthruster from Professor Tohichi Hikita of Nagoya university at $157/hour. This cost is quite reasonable given that similar facilities are twice as expensive.
This is all on the web at click on FAQs and

22. Total Budget Upload
The Total Budget PDF is uploaded in exactly the same way that the proposal PDF is uploaded, but by choosing document type "Total Budget", see figure below. This Total Budget file will not be seen by peer reviewers. In general, these budget files are for Step-2 proposals only.
Generic whats new is at but the one about budgets is

23. Table of Work Effort
Table of work effort in the main proposal PDF is merely a reporting of all of the planned work commitment, funded by NASA or not, see Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES summary of Solicitation and templates are available at:
Note, this table is outside of and is distinct from budget and the page limited main part of proposal, which must describe what work each team member will be doing. That doesn't belong here.
This is all on the web at click on FAQs and

24. Order of Precedence
There is a section I(h) in the Summary of Solicitation, called Order of Precedence: The Guidebook vs. ROSES vs. Program Elements which tells you what to do if ROSES SOS, the guidebook, and or an individual program element disagree: Program element > Division Research Overview (e.g., C.1) > SOS > Guidebook.
FAQs should merely elaborate, not surprise you or contravene a rule in the program element.

25. Guidebook Changes
The description of 'consultant' has been updated to distinguish between that and a normal Co-I.
Current and pending is now required for those Co-Is >10% of their time (same as ROSES).
The definitions of strength and weakness findings in proposal evaluations has been improved.
Consistent with the DMP requirement, annual and final reports now include reporting on release of datasets and products (including code).

26. Please Review Proposals
Please review proposals when called on if you possibly can and are not conflicted. Peer review is at the core of our imperfect but democratic and successful process.
THANK YOU to everyone who has previously served and continues to help with the peer review process!
Go to and click on "volunteer"
You may also suggest reviewers as well.

27. Thank you