Archived 2015 FAQ

This was the FAQ for ROSES-2015. For the current FAQs on the current ROSES see

What's new In ROSES 2015? How does it differ from prior ROSES?

The 2015 edition of our annual omnibus solicitation Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES-2015) will appear in mid February and overall it is quite similar to last year (ROSES-2014). However, there are some important changes. Below is a list of things that have changed in ROSES, and other items of note.

In addition to those listed below, other changes to ROSES over the course of the year will be sent out via email to anyone who subscribes to the SMD mailing list via NSPIRES, they will be listed on the SARA ROSES-15 clarifications, corrections and amendmentspage and RSS feed, and on the NSPIRES page for each program element. Program elements that have been amended appear as bold and red on Tables 2 & 3 of ROSES where they are listed by due date and subject area, respectively.

Changes of note for proposers to ROSES-2015:

  1. In keeping with the NASA Plan for increasing access to results of Federally funded research, new terms and conditions about making manuscripts and data publically accessible may be attached to future awards that derive from ROSES. Most proposals to ROSES-2015 must include a data management plan (DMP) or an explanation of why one is not necessary given the nature of the work proposed. More information, including the kind of data that falls under these data management plan, and where to include the DMP is described in a separate FAQ devoted to the subject of Data Management Plans.
  2. It has long been a requirement that each proposal include a summary table with names and planned work commitment of all personnel necessary to perform the proposed effort, whether or not the work effort requires NASA funding or not. This information is crucial for peer reviewers to assess whether the person-time proposed (rather than $) is appropriate for the tasks. In the past, some proposers were not permitted by their universities to include the time not paid for by NASA in this table, because it was in the budget section of the proposal. This year theguidebook for proposers has moved this table of personnel and work efforts out of the budget section. Moreover, NASA has adopted the NSF language noting that any time commitment that is not funded by NASA is not considered cost sharing, as defined in 2 CFR § 215.23. This will allow proposers to report the actual time they plan to devote, whether or not it is paid for by NASA. Where names are not known use titles (e.g., graduate student or postdoctoral fellow). This table of work effort is not in either the page limited technical/scientific section, nor in the budget section. It is merely a reporting of all of the planned work commitment, funded by NASA, or not, as opposed to the page-limited technical/scientific proposal, which describes what work each team member will be doing.
  3. Table 1 of ROSES 2014 has changed from being a repetition of the goals and objectives in the science plan (which is now merely referenced, but not included) to a checklist for proposers. It is to be hoped that this checklist will be a useful reminder and diminish the frequency of noncompliant proposals.
  4. What was Section II(b) "Successor Proposals and Resubmissions" in prior ROSES has been moved to I(g), clarified, and renamed "Successor, Resubmitted, and Duplicate Proposals". This is not a change in content just in form. In that section we reiterate our openness to resubmission. However, please note that entire Appendices (e.g., A, Earth Science, B Heliophysis…) or individual program elements in ROSES may limit multiple or duplicate submissions to a given a call or between calls in a given year. For example, Appendix B permits only one Step-2 proposal per principal investigator to certain program elements and Appendix C bars submission of the same proposal to more than one program element. Please read the individual calls carefully.

  5. In general, relevance of the proposed work is judged based on whether the work proposed is deemed to be relevant to that program element, whether or not it includes an overt, clear and direct statement of relevance. That is, unless otherwise stated in the call (see below for exceptions) no proposal will be returned as noncompliant for lack of a relevance section or statement. However, you are a fool if you don't include at least a statement of relevance. Demonstrate relevance to the particular program element. You need not include generic statements of relevance to NASA’s broader goals. We wouldn’t solicit proposals in a certain area if it were inconsistent with our strategic plan, so you don’t have to waste a paragraph telling us that it is.Of courseinclusion of a relevance statement is no guarantee that the proposal will be judged relevant. A few program elements in Appendix C (e.g., C.3-C.5 & C.10) require an explicit relevance statement, which will be collected in a mandatory (4000-character) text box on the cover pages via the NSPIRES web interface. For these few program elements that require the special relevance statement on the cover pages, relevance is outside of the 15-page Scientific/Technical/Management Section and the relocation of the relevance discussion does not decrease that 15-page limit. This requirement supersedes the default in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the ROSES Summary of Solicitation. For these calls the omission a relevance statement on the cover pages is sufficient reason for a proposal to be returned without review. For goodness sake please read the calls carefully.

    Continuing features of note for proposers to ROSES: Proposers should be aware of the following features of note in this NRA, most of which are changes made in recent years but are not new this year:
  6. NASA still cannot support bilateral participation, collaboration, or coordination with China or any Chinese-owned company or entity, whether funded or performed under a no-exchange-of-funds arrangement. See our special FAQ on ROSES and the PRC at
  7. NASA civil servant salaries must not be included in either the NSPIRES cover page (web-based form) budgets nor the budget justification within ROSES proposals. This applies to proposals submitted by NASA Centers, as well as to proposals submitted by non-NASA organizations that include NASA civil servants serving as funded co-investigators. However, the Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) being requested for NASA civil servant investigators must be included and justified in the budget justification within the proposal. NASA will budget and account for civil servant salaries within ROSES proposals through a separate internal agency process. The latest NASA internal policy on this subject, including instructions on what to include in budgets for ROSES proposals, may be found at the SARA website at
  8. Some research programs specify that they will not award contracts, as it is not appropriate for the nature of the work. See, for example, Program elements A.15, A.26, A.39, B.2, and B.4. If not explicitly excluded, a contract is a possible award type, if appropriate to the work proposed. The budget narrative need not state the type of award instrument that is anticipated. A NASA awards officer will determine the appropriate award instrument for the selections resulting from this solicitation. See also Section II (a) of the ROSES Summary of Solicitation.
  9. Proposals submitted in response to ROSES are permitted 15 characters per inch, typical of font Times New Roman 12, and consistent with our Announcements of Opportunity and the guidebook for proposers. This requirement applies to body text and figure captions, but it does not apply to text within figures and tables, which may be smaller, but must still be judged by the reviewers to be readable.
  10. Multiple PIs (as described in Section 1.4.2 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers) are not permitted in ROSES unless specifically allowed by an individual program element (e.g., from a non-U.S. organization under specific circumstances). The use of other categories of participation described in Section 1.4.2 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, including Science PI & Institutional PI (e.g., in the case of a researcher who doesn't have the standing to propose from their institution alone) are permitted.
  11. Proposals submitted in response to ROSES can be submitted through either NSPIRES or However, certain caveats apply, see Section IV(b)(v) of the summary of Solicitation or FAQ 17 for details.
  12. Ban on general purpose equipment is only for that > $ 5000. The guidebook for proposers ban on "General-purpose equipment (i.e., personal computers and/or commercial software)" does not apply to equipment that costs less than $ 5000. As long as it’s < 5 K you can request it via ROSES even if it’s general purpose equipment.

Please direct questions or corrections on this page to