Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science (ROSES) – 2019

Agenda

• What's new in ROSES-2019 (not much):

- individual program elements

- ROSES-wide policy changes

- keeping track of changes after release

• Reminder of changes from recent years

• Other resources for proposers:

- SARA web page

- Serving on review panels

- Where to find about past selections

• Max’s personal idiosyncratic advice

2

What is "ROSES"

"ROSES" = Research Opportunities in Space

and Earth Sciences, An "omnibus" solicitation,

which means many topics, many due dates,

and the default rules (about all the boring stuff

like fonts, policies etc.) is (mostly) relegated to

the "Summary of Solicitation". See the

ROSES-19 landing web page at:

http://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2019

Once you have read it once you can focus on

the science or technology in the short call.3

Table 1 of ROSES

Table 1 of ROSES (in the "Summary of

Solicitation) is a check list of the parts of the

proposal, listing whether various components

are excluded, optional, or mandatory, page

limits etc., e.g.,

4

Facilities and Equipment: The ninth component of the proposal, no page limit.

Length restriction None, as needed

Excluded content Does not add scientific or technical information beyond a description of the facilities

and equipment, i.e., don't add here what should be in the page-limited

scientific/technical Section.

Detailed Budget: The tenth and final component of the main proposal document.

Strongly

Recommended

Detailed budget, itemizing expenses.

Strongly

Recommended

Separate detailed budget from each subaward organization.

Excluded Do not include any $ or % values for salary, fringe, or overhead in this section which is

peer reviewed. See the FAQ at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs#8

Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES

The list of "Program elements" (calls for

proposals) in ROSES are most easily found by

book marking either Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES,

web pages that list them either by date or by

"Division" = Astrophysics, Earth Science…

http://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2019table2

and

http://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2019table3

5

Name of Program ElementNOI/Step 1

Due Date

Proposal

Due Date

C.15 Planetary Protection Research [3] See C.15 ROSES-2018

D.2 Astrophysics Data Analysis See D.16 in ROSES-18

A.39Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, Ocean Ecosystem

(PACE) Mission System Vicarious CalibrationSee A.48 in ROSES-18

E.3 Exoplanets Research Program [3] See E.5 in ROSES-2018

A.40 Understanding Changes in High Mountain Asia 04/16/2019 06/12/2019

C.2 Emerging Worlds [3]04/16/2019

(Step-1)

06/12/2019

(Step-2)

C.5 Exobiology [3] 05/13/2019 06/12/2019

C.6 Solar System Observations [3]04/16/2019

(Step-1)

06/12/2019

(Step-2)

C.20Development and Advancement of Lunar

Instrumentation Program

04/16/2019

(Step-1)

06/12/2019

(Step-2)

A.27 Earth Surface and Interior 05/17/2019 06/14/2019

A.28 GRACE-FO Science Team 05/21/2019 06/14/2019

B.11 Heliophysics Data Environment Emphasis04/18/2019

(Step-1)06/20/2019

Table 2 of ROSES (sorted by due date)

6

Links for Later

• See Section I(c) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation and

• http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs

• Budget FAQ: http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-

to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

• Data management plans FAQ:

http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/dmp-faq-roses/

• RSS feed of ROSES amendments:

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-

solicitations/ROSES-2019/

• Instructions for Google due date calendar is at:

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/library-and-useful-

links

• https://www.nasa.gov/open/researchaccess/pubspace

7

What's New: Appendix A (Earth Science)

PACE Mission System Vicarious Calibration is A.48 of

ROSES-18

A.38 PACE Science and Applications Team (proposals

are due 07/15/2019)

A.53 Joint NASA ISRO Airborne SAR Campaign over

the US in 2019. Quick turn around, MANDATORY

NOIs are due May 20, 2019.

A.8 Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI)

Science Team (currently TBD)

A.33 Earth Science Research from Operational

Geostationary Satellite Systems (currently TBD)

8

What's New: Appendix A (continued)

Space Archaeology returns as a (sub) element of

Interdisciplinary Science in Earth Science (A.32)

New! Released by amendment April 30 (without a prior

TBD): A.54 Decadal Survey Incubation Study

Teams: Planetary Boundary Layer and Surface

Topography and Vegetation. A preproposal bidder's

conference will be held on June 4, 2019, at 1:00

p.m. Eastern Time. Notices of intent to propose are

requested by June 17, 2019, and the due date for

five-page proposals is August 1, 2019.

9

Earth Science illustrative of all states options

Although most common for Earth Science, which has the most

program elements, for all of ROSES many programs are not

solicited every year so, as always, individual program elements

are on their own cadence, some with full text available now

(e.g., A.2), some with a bold notice indicating that they will be

solicited but dates are currently TBD (e.g., A.6 and A.8), and

some with a bold notice indicating that they will not be solicited

this year (e.g., A.3-A.5).

Sometimes we add a program element later in the year and

there was no indication of it in ROSES on release because

circumstances changed.

10

What's New: Appendix B (Heliophysics)

• B.7 Space Weather Science Applications Operations 2

Research is new this year (Started as TBD but final text

was just released as Amendment #1 to ROSES-19).

• What was the Flight Opportunities part of Heliophysics

Technology and Instrument Development for Science (H-

TIDeS) in ROSES-18 has been pulled out and is solicited

separately as B.9 Heliophysics Flight Opportunities for

Research and Technology (H-FORT).

• Most program elements in Appendix B require a Step-1

proposal, so keep an eye on those Step-1 proposal due

dates. It used to be that all program elements required a

Step-1 but this year B.8 H-TIDeS and B.9 H-FORT don’t

even ask for an NOI let alone a Step-1.

11

What's New: Appendix C (Planetary)

• Planetary "intends to solicit" proposals for C.21 the

Lunar Technology Program (currently TBD).

• Planetary "may solicit" proposals for C.22 Bepi-

Colombo Participating Scientists Program (TBD).

• C.19 the Planetary Science Early Career Award

(ECA) program is solicited this year after having been

released as draft last year.

• Korea Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter Participating Scientist

Program was released as program element C.31 of

ROSES-2018. Step-1s are due April 11, 2019.

12

What's New: Appendix D (Astrophysics)

• The Astrophysics Data Analysis Program (ADAP)

program is not being solicited in ROSES-2019 because it

was solicited a second time in ROSES-2018 in order to

maintain its normal schedule and due date. See D.16

Second Astrophysics Data Analysis, with proposals due

May 17, 2019.

• Ditto the exoplanets research program, cross division

between Astro and Planetary (now with Heliophysics!)

• Program element D.13 System-Level Segmented

Telescope Design – Technology Maturation was added

by amendment. Prime must be a commercial org.

13

Mandatory NOIs vs. Step-1 Proposals

Name of Program ElementNOI/Step 1 Due Date

Proposal Due Date

B.11 Heliophysics Data Environment Emphasis04/18/2019

(Step-1)06/20/2019

(Step-2)

C.16 Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples04/24/2019

(Step-1)06/25/2019

(Step-2)

A.9 Physical Oceanography 05/30/2019 06/27/2019

D.4 Astrophysics Theory Program 05/02/2019 06/27/2019

A.16 Modeling Analysis and Prediction 05/03/2019 07/02/2019

A.25The Soil Moisture Active-Passive Mission Science

Team05/15/2019 07/11/2019

C.4 Planetary Data Archiving, Restoration, and Tools05/09/2019

(Step-1)07/11/2019

(Step-2)

A.38 PACE Science and Applications Team 05/15/2019 07/15/2019

B.4 Heliophysics Guest Investigators Open05/15/2019

(Step-1)07/17/2019

(Step-2)

C.10 Cassini Data Analysis05/16/2019

(Step-1)07/18/2019

(Step-2)

C.7 New Frontiers Data Analysis05/30/2019

(mandatory NOIs)

08/01/2019

B.8Heliophysics Technology and Instrument

Development for ScienceN/A 08/28/2019

14

Mandatory NOIs vs. Step-1 Proposals

Name of Program ElementNOI/Step 1 Due Date

Proposal Due Date

B.11 Heliophysics Data Environment Emphasis04/18/2019

(Step-1)06/20/2019

(Step-2)

C.16 Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples04/24/2019

(Step-1)06/25/2019

(Step-2)

A.9 Physical Oceanography 05/30/2019 06/27/2019

D.4 Astrophysics Theory Program 05/02/2019 06/27/2019

A.16 Modeling Analysis and Prediction 05/03/2019 07/02/2019

A.25The Soil Moisture Active-Passive Mission Science

Team05/15/2019 07/11/2019

If it doesn’t say anything special its a normal,

optional, NOI, submitted by the PI, not a proposal by

the organization, and its not a prerequisite for

proposal submission.

15

Mandatory NOIs vs. Step-1 Proposals

Name of Program ElementNOI/Step 1 Due Date

Proposal Due Date

B.4 Heliophysics Guest Investigators Open05/15/2019

(Step-1)07/17/2019

(Step-2)

C.10 Cassini Data Analysis05/16/2019

(Step-1)07/18/2019

(Step-2)

C.7 New Frontiers Data Analysis05/30/2019

(mandatory NOIs)

08/01/2019

B.8Heliophysics Technology and Instrument

Development for ScienceN/A 08/28/2019

If it says mandatory NOI, then its submitted by the PI,

not a proposal by the organization, but it is required

for proposal submission subsequently.

16

Mandatory NOIs vs. Step-1 Proposals

If it says Step-1 then in place of the NOI there is a

mandatory proposal = submitted by the

organization, not the PI, and it is required for

proposal submission subsequently. Read your

program elements regarding changes between

Step-1 and Step-2, Appendix B is the most

restrictive by far. 17

Name of Program ElementNOI/(Step-1) Due Date [2]

Proposal Due Date

B.4 Heliophysics Guest Investigators Open05/15/2019

(Step-1)07/17/2019

(Step-2)

C.10 Cassini Data Analysis [3]05/16/2019

(Step-1)07/18/2019

(Step-2)

C.7 New Frontiers Data Analysis [3]05/30/2019

(Mandatory NOI)

08/01/2019

B.8 Heliophysics Technology and Instrument Development for Science N/A 08/28/2019

What's New: Changes to the SoS

Section II.(c) on increasing access to the results of federally

funded research links to the Federal Register notice, specifies

that manuscripts are to be deposited within one year, and notes

that failure to do so "may delay or prevent awarding of funds."

In Section IV(b)iii in the description of the summary table of work

effort it is noted that, unless otherwise stated in an individual

program element, person time listed in the table of work effort

offered at no cost by the proposing organization is assumed to

be an estimate of anticipated additional effort…and is

considered voluntary uncommitted effort.

Section VI.(b) now defines the programmatic considerations that

may be considered by the selection official.

Section VIII now includes a link to information on filing a

complaint through the NASA Office of Diversity and Equal

Opportunity.18

Changes and Additions to ROSES after release:

Bold and red in Tables 2 and 3

19

Proposal due date delayed

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 email if you subscribe to the SMD mailing

list in NSPIRES under "Account Management".

20

Changes and Additions to ROSES after release:

Links to Amendments etc. on the home page

21

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/roses-2019/ 22

RSS Feed for

changes to

ROSES-2019 on

the SARA web

page.

Not read yet

Changes and Additions to ROSES after release

Google due date calendar

You are here

(again SARA

web page)

23

Other useful things on the SARA web page at

https://sara.nasa.gov

24

Volunteer to serve on a review panel athttps://science.nasa.gov/researchers/volunteer-review-panels

You are here

25

26

Volunteer to serve on a

review panel, continued

Statistics about prior ROSESat https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-stats

27

You are here

Points of contact for ROSESat https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list/

28

You are here

Heliophysics Programs

• Heliophysics R&A Lead: Mona Kessel, email:

mona.kessel, phone: 202-358-0064

• Heliophysics Supporting Research: Arik Posner, email:

arik.posner, phone: 202-358-0727

• Heliophysics Technology and Instrument Development for

Science: Roshanak Hakimzadeh, email: hakimzadeh,

phone: 202-358-0784

• Heliophysics Flight Opportunities for Research and

Technology: Dan Moses, email: dan.moses, phone: 202-

358-0558

• Heliophysics Guest Investigators: Galen Fowler,

email: galen.fowler, phone: 202-358-0039

• Early Career Investigator Program in Heliophysics: Liz

Macdonald, email: elizabeth.a.macdonald, phone: 202-358-

0991

• GOLD/ICON Guest Investigators: Galen Fowler,

email: galen.fowler, phone: 202-358-0039

• Magnetospheric Multiscale Guest Investigators: Galen

Fowler, email: galen.fowler, phone: 202-358-0039

• Open Data-Development Element: William

Paterson, email: william.r.paterson , phone: 202-358-0991

• Space Weather Operations-to-Research: James Spann,

email: jim.spann, phone: 202-358-0574

• Theory-Modeling-Simulations: Ekaterina Verner, email:

For Researchers

Subscribe / Contact SARA

Advisory Committees

FAQs

Grant Solicitations

Announcement of Opportunity

Grant Stats

Program Officers List

How To Guide

Letters from SARA

Library and Useful Links

Fellowship Opportunities

Volunteer for Review Panels

Suggest Reviewers for

ROSES Science Proposals

Data & Pubs Rules

Example excerpt from grant stats spreadsheet

29

Remember, it takes a while for review and selection (sometimes waiting on budget) so this

tends to be at least 6 months after proposal due date. This year longer cause of shutdown.

Solicitation or Program Element Title Submitted Selected* % SelectedNotes * Selected means "encouraged" or

"invited" for Step-1 proposals, depending. It

has no meaning for NOIs.

Ocean Salinity Field Campaign SPURS-2 Processing and Synthesis 4 4 100%Earth Surface and Interior 55 19 35%Sustaining Living Systems in a Time of Climate Variability and Change 63 17 27%Earth Science Applications: Disaster Risk Reduction and Response 40 10 25%Precipitation Measurement Missions (PMM) Science Team 130 40 31%Physical Oceanography 56 12 21%Earth Science U.S. Participating Investigator

26 831% 2 selectables pending

CloudSat and CALIPSO Science Team Recompete 101

Earth Science Applications: Water Resources Step-1 106 49 46%Earth Science Applications: Water Resources Step-2 46 13 28%Atmospheric Composition: Modeling and Analysis

114 2522% 4 selectables pending

NASA Energy and Water Cycle Study 13

Science Team for the NASA ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) Mission 51

Land Cover Land Use Change Step-1 52 23 44%Land Cover Land Use Change Step-2 22 Step-2 due 4/2/2019Rapid Response and Novel Research in Earth Science 8 7 88%SERVIR Applied Sciences Team Step-1 94

SERVIR Applied Sciences Team Step-2Step-2 proposals are due

7/19/2019Terrestrial Ecology 72 17 24%DSCOVR Science Team

29 1448% 1 selectable pending

Earth Venture Instrument 5 (EVI-5) 15

ECOSTRESS Science Teamproposals are due 04/23/2019

Advanced Information Systems Technology 100

Remote Sensing Theory for Earth Science 134

Reminders of changes from recent ROSES

30

• We are still using the 2018 guidebook for now…

• We are still redacting budgets (examples follow)

• PRC (China) restrictions remain in place see http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/prc-faq-roses/

• All grants now require that manuscript versions of

published peer reviewed papers be archived in

PMC and those will be made public one year after

publication.

• Data Management Plans (DMPs) are still required

with most proposals.

Redaction ReminderI’m going to skip a few slides after this but leave them in the set to refer to later

There are four things that every proposal needs:

1. Cover page budget with everything in it, this will be

redacted automatically.

2. 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:

http://tinyurl.com/hbnff8u

3. Budget details and justification for things (not

people) in the main proposal PDF.

4. 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. 31

Cover Page Budget

From http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

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

32

From http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

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.

Cover Page Budget

33

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."

Budget Details/Justification

34

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.

Budget Details/Justification

35

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.36

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. For a very simple example, see Section

IV(b)iii of the ROSES summary of Solicitation and templates

are available at: http://tinyurl.com/hbnff8u

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.

See Templates for the planetary science division on the

SARA web page at

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-

planetary-science-division-appendix-c-roses-proposals

Table of Work Effort

37

(very simple) Table of Work Effort

38

Person and/or Role Time charged to

this proposal

Time not charged to

this proposal

Total Time per

person/year

PI, Ricci Sanchez 3 months/year N/A 3 months/year

Co-I, Mortia Smith 4 months/year N/A 4 months/year

Co-I, Revolio

Clockberg Jr.* N/A 1.5 months/year 1.5 months/year

Collaborator,

Daniella Harmon N/A de minimis de minimis

Grad Student,

Justine RoilandºN/A 12 months/year 12 months/year

* A letter of support is provided from the foreign organization Herpson Polytecknic

Universität for Prof. Revolio Clockberg Jr. participating at no cost to this

proposal.

º The Graduate student from the Citadel is funded by a FINESST award and thus

participating at no cost to this proposal.

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.

39

See what won in the past

If there is a particular program of interest to you, you

may simply visit the NSPIRES page of that program

element from past years and look under " Selections"

40

here

https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=660534/solicitationId=%7BB4D94D2

4-60AE-981C-24F2-2A6EC690C99E%7D/viewSolicitationDocument=1/ESI18%20Abstracts.pdf

See what won in the past

But if you don’t know of a particular program, you may

search the NSSC grant status database to get a list of

grants based on key word from the title, university, PI

etc.

https://www.nssc.nasa.gov/grantstatus

41

Max's personal idiosyncratic advice

• Don't annoy the reviewer.

• Don’t just write a proposal that can be understood,

write a proposal that cannot be misunderstood.

• Use figures and tables.

• Have your proposal reviewed by others, who are

not experts in your subdiscipline, and then make

changes based on what they say.

• I didn't say that you had to make the changes they

suggested, I said that you had to make changes.

• Ditto the reviews you get back from us. I could do a

whole bunch of slides just on this.

• The an inherent uncertainty in the measurement of

Merit is + > 0.5 <1.0 (10-20%).42

So you just got back your review and…

• You now have proof that the reviewers are morons.

• Yes, but its your responsibility to write a proposal

that even a moron can see is excellent.

• Don’t tell the word that your reviewers are morons,

because they are your friends on Facebook.

• Don’t tell the program officer that your reviewers

are morons, because he or she literally used your

suggestions.

• Vox populi, vox Dei.

• No, there is not enough room for the detail needed.

• Some things are worth saying more than once

• Or maybe need to be emphasized with bold or

something?43

Thank you

Send questions to SARA@nasa.gov

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.

Go to http://sara.nasa.gov and click on "volunteer”

Questions?

44

45