NASA ROSES Research Grants (Ongoing): How to Compete for Funding Across Space and Earth Science Programs

If you work with NASA data, design experiments for microgravity, or model planetary atmospheres, ROSES is where a surprising number of NASA research dollars live. ROSES—the Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science omnibus solicitation—is not a single grant. It’s a sprawling family of calls that fund everything from astrophysics theory to field campaigns on Earth, from instrument development to advanced data analysis. Deadlines vary by program element; some are rolling, some have annual due dates, and some have “no due date” tracks that accept proposals year-round.

Think of ROSES as a giant buffet of NASA research funding. You won’t eat everything on the table, but if you pick the right dishes and know how to describe them, you can walk away with a plate that fills your lab for years. This guide walks you through the nitty-gritty: who should apply, what reviewers care about, what materials you actually need, and how to time your work so your application reads like a proposal written by someone who knows the system — because you will.

Below you’ll find practical advice that goes beyond the basic solicitation text: how to choose the right ROSES program element, how to use NASA’s massive data archives as a strength, how dual-anonymous peer review changes phrasing, and how early-career researchers can make a proposal stand out even without a long publication record.

At a Glance

What This Opportunity Offers

ROSES is a Swiss Army knife of NASA funding. Rather than offering a single award amount or rigid program structure, ROSES includes dozens of separate calls—each called a program element—covering Earth science, heliophysics, planetary science, astrophysics, and biological/physical sciences relevant to spaceflight. Some elements fund ideas and theory, others fund instrument development or suborbital payloads; a few support long-term observing or data stewardship activities.

Monetarily, awards range from modest seed grants (often tens of thousands of dollars) to multi-year, multi-million-dollar projects. The exact amount and period depend on the element you target. That variability is an advantage: you can look for an element that matches the scale of what you want to do rather than forcing your project into an ill-fitting budget box.

Beyond the money, ROSES gives you access to NASA data and infrastructure. SMD is sitting on vast archives—over 100 petabytes now, with projections of more than 100 PB per year across divisions within five years. Proposals that show savvy use of those archives or that propose to add curated value (processed datasets, community tools, or reproducible analysis pipelines) frequently score well.

ROSES also offers programmatic benefits: connections to NASA centers, opportunities for flight or suborbital testing in certain elements, and the visibility that comes from being part of NASA-sponsored research. For early-career scientists, participating as a ROSES PI can be the fastest way to establish a research program that leads to larger federal grants or collaborations with mission teams.

Who Should Apply

ROSES is incredibly broad, but not everyone should apply to every element. The typical successful ROSES applicant has one of these profiles:

• An investigator with a clearly defined scientific question that directly aligns with a specific ROSES element. That alignment matters more than raw prestige.
• Early-career researchers who need a solid pilot project or initial data to compete for bigger grants. ROSES elements focused on analysis, data tools, and small investigations are especially friendly to new PIs.
• Interdisciplinary teams that combine modeling, observations, and instrumentation. ROSES values proposals that explain how different approaches fit together to answer a question.
• Scientists who plan to use NASA archives, because demonstrating proficiency with existing datasets significantly strengthens feasibility arguments.
• Small companies or engineers working on technologies relevant to NASA missions; some ROSES elements explicitly fund applied technology development or suborbital flight hardware.

Real-world examples: A planetary scientist proposing an analysis of Cassini-era data to test a new model of Saturn’s rings would be a good fit for a planetary element that funds data analysis. An early-career Earth scientist proposing a 2-year project using NASA remote sensing data to validate a new soil-moisture retrieval algorithm would fit well in an Earth Science ROSES call. A small instrumentation team proposing a flight-tested sensor for suborbital deployment should target suborbital or instrument development program elements.

If you’re unsure, contact the listed program officer for the specific element. They will tell you whether your idea fits and which restrictions apply. Also consult the ROSES FAQ and New PI resources for guidance tailored to applicants with less proposal experience.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application

Good proposals are not written; they’re constructed. Here are concrete moves experienced applicants use to turn a competent idea into a fundable one.

1. Pick the right program element and read its full text at least twice. The solicitation text has hard constraints—page limits, required sections, evaluation criteria—that you must meet. Failing to follow the element-specific instructions is an easy rejection.

2. Early contact with the program officer pays dividends. Don’t ask vague questions. Send a one-page concept summary and ask three specific questions: (1) Does this idea fit the element? (2) Are there any technical restrictions I should know about? (3) Is my proposed funding level reasonable? Program officers can sometimes tell you which reviewers to expect.

3. Use NASA data as a strength, not just a data source. If your work relies on SMD archives, include a brief data provenance plan: specific datasets, access methods, and a simple explanation of how you will handle large datasets (compute resources, subset strategies, reproducibility). Mention existing community tools you’ll use or improve.

4. Be explicit about deliverables and timelines. Reviewers can’t read your mind. If your project produces a pipeline, a public dataset, and three papers in two years, state that clearly and show a month-by-month timeline. Don’t hide your milestones in the methods section.

5. Prepare for Dual-Anonymous Peer Review if applicable. Many ROSES elements use dual-anonymous review, which means remove identifiers from the proposal text and bibliographic references; describe prior work in neutral terms, and include a non-anonymous cover sheet only where allowed. Follow the DAPR guidance pages exactly.

6. Build a feasible budget from the bottom up. Explain key cost drivers—personnel, computing, flight tests—and justify them. If your proposal depends on high-cost items, show matching commitments or contingency plans.

7. Enlist non-specialist reviewers. Because ROSES panels often include cross-disciplinary scientists, have at least two reviewers who are intelligent readers outside your subfield. If they can follow your significance and methods sections, you’re in good shape.

8. Emphasize broader impacts sensibly. NASA cares about public data products, reproducibility, and education/outreach. Propose realistic activities: a short data tutorial, an undergraduate internship, or contributions to a community repository.

9. Proofread like you mean it. Sloppy writing signals sloppy science. Use institutional editors or peers to vet both the narrative and the budget justification.

10. If eligible, volunteer to be a reviewer before you apply. Reviewing helps you understand scoring priorities and common weaknesses. New PI resources often publish reviewer insights that are gold.

Application Timeline (Work Backward from Your Target Deadline)

Successful ROSES proposals are rarely last-minute scrambles. Here’s a practical schedule for a standard 8–12 week preparation.

• Weeks 8–10 out: Identify the program element and read its solicitation text. Email the program officer with a one-page concept brief.
• Weeks 6–8 out: Draft specific aims and a preliminary budget. Get institutional approvals for indirect costs and confirm any needed letters of support.
• Weeks 4–6 out: Complete a full draft of the scientific narrative and budget justification. Circulate to internal reviewers (one specialist, one non-specialist).
• Weeks 2–4 out: Incorporate feedback, finalize figures, and prepare ancillary documents (biographical sketches, data management plan, facilities description).
• Week 1 out: Final copy edit, check fonts, pagination, and file formats. Confirm cover pages and dual-anonymous anonymity if required.
• Submit at least 48 hours before the deadline. Technical issues and human errors happen; don’t be the one caught by them.

No Due Date program elements let you apply when ready, but treat them with the same discipline—build a predictable timeline and allow time for institutional review.

Required Materials and How to Prepare Them

ROSES elements vary, but the following list covers materials that are commonly required. Preparing them early saves last-minute panic.

• Project Narrative: The main scientific and technical description (often 8–15 pages depending on element). Structure it with clear sections: objectives, significance, approach, timeline, and risk mitigation.
• Budget and Budget Justification: Itemized personnel, equipment, travel, and computing costs, with a narrative justification for each major line item. Work with your sponsored projects office to compute indirect costs correctly.
• Biographical Sketches (Biosketches): Focus on relevant experience, recent publications, and roles. For early-career PIs, emphasize training and mentorship plans.
• Data Management Plan: Describe datasets, storage, access, metadata standards, and long-term curation. If your work produces large data products, explain where they will be archived.
• Facilities and Resources: Describe institutional resources, computing facilities, and any unique instruments you’ll use.
• Letters of Collaboration or Support: If you require access to NASA facilities or partner labs, include letters that specify support and responsibilities.
• Appendix Materials: Some elements allow limited appendices (figures, preliminary data). Follow instructions carefully to avoid disallowed attachments.
• Cover Sheet/Administrative Forms: Submit via NSPIRES or the specified portal. For DAPR elements, the cover sheet may be non-anonymous; follow the instructions.

Start assembling these documents early. Draft budget justifications and letters of support in parallel with the science narrative so everything reads consistently.

What Makes an Application Stand Out

Reviewers reward proposals that are clear, realistic, and calibrated to the review criteria. Here’s what consistently moves applications up the ranking:

• Crisp, measurable objectives. Instead of “we will study X,” say “we will measure parameter Y to test hypothesis Z, using dataset A and model B.”
• A feasible plan. Demonstrate you can do the work in the proposed time with the requested budget. Address technical risks and backups.
• Demonstrated access to data and facilities. If you say you’ll analyze instrument data, show you have the know-how and access—cite previous work or collaborations.
• Clear deliverables and public benefit. Proposals that promise and describe sharable outputs—software, processed datasets, tutorials—score well on broader impacts.
• Team composition that matches the tasks. If you need expertise in a niche technique, either show the PI has it or include a collaborator who does.
• Good writing and logical flow. A tightly written proposal with clear section transitions is easier to evaluate and appreciated by reviewers.

Common Mistakes to Avoid (and How to Fix Them)

1. Mismatched program element: Don’t force-fit your project into an element it doesn’t belong to. Fix: Read element goals and ask the program officer before drafting the entire proposal.

2. Weak feasibility description: Vague methods lead reviewers to doubt you can finish. Fix: Add a timeline and contingency plans, and show prior related work or pilot data.

3. Budget arithmetic errors: Small math mistakes look careless. Fix: Use institutional templates and have your grants office review numbers.

4. Overuse of jargon: Dense technical language alienates non-specialist reviewers. Fix: Explain specialty techniques in 1–2 sentences and use plain language for significance.

5. Ignoring DAPR rules: In dual-anonymous calls, naming collaborators or institutions in the narrative can disqualify anonymity. Fix: Follow the DAPR guidance and use the allowed administrative pages for identities.

6. Late submission: Technical issues happen. Fix: Submit early and confirm all files uploaded correctly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can international collaborators be funded? A: Many ROSES elements allow international collaborators, but often the award must be administered by a U.S. institution and the PI is U.S.-based. Check the element-specific rules and discuss with the program officer.

Q: Do I need preliminary data? A: Not always. Strong feasibility arguments, existing expertise, and pilot studies help. For high-risk technical elements, pilot work is usually important.

Q: How strict are page limits? A: Very. Page limits are enforced. Don’t try to hide extra material in figures or appendices unless explicitly permitted.

Q: What is the ROSES No Due Date (NoDD) option? A: Some planetary science elements accept proposals year-round. This helps projects that need quick turnaround or iterative submissions. Check the NoDD guidance for constraints.

Q: Will I get reviewer comments if not funded? A: Yes. NASA typically provides summary statements that include reviewer comments — valuable for resubmission.

Q: Are early-career researchers favored? A: Some elements have provisions or resources for early-career investigators. There are also New PI resources and peer review volunteer opportunities that help those building a track record.

Q: How do I find the right program officer? A: Use the Program Officers List linked on the ROSES pages. Email with a concise concept summary and specific questions.

How to Apply / Get Started

Ready to prepare your application? Start with the official pages. Read the ROSES FAQ, the individual program element solicitation, and the Dual-Anonymous Peer Review guidance if applicable. Bookmark the ROSES table for the current year and the NSPIRES or solicitation portal where you’ll submit.

Apply Now: Visit the NASA researchers hub and the ROSES solicitation table here:

• Primary hub for researchers: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/
• ROSES solicitation table (ROSES-2025): http://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2025table3

For general questions and site corrections contact [email protected]. For element-specific technical questions, email the program officer listed on the element page.

Final checklist before submission: chosen program element confirmed with a program officer, full narrative written to page limits, budget vetted by your grants office, data management plan included, and at least two rounds of reviews by colleagues (one specialist, one non-specialist). Submit early, and keep a copy of your submitted files and the confirmation email.

If you apply thoughtfully and follow these steps, ROSES can be a realistic path to seed new lines of research, test novel instrumentation, or build public datasets that the community uses for years. It’s a big table—choose your plate, describe it well, and bring home the funding.