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

1. Research Opportunities inSpace and Earth Science (ROSES) – 2019

2. 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 Agenda

3. "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. What is "ROSES"

4. 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 What is "ROSES"

5. Table 2 of "ROSES" ROSES-18 vs. 19 Overlap 

6. 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 Links for Later

7. PACE Mission System Vicarious CalibrationisA.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 Systemsmay be solicited • Space Archaeology returns as a (sub) element of Interdisciplinary Science in Earth Science(A.32) What's New: Appendix A (Earth Science)

8. 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. Appendix A (Earth Science) continued

9. B.7 Space Weather Science Applications Operations 2 Researchis 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. What's New: Appendix B (Heliophysics)

10. A new opportunity appears in C.21 the Lunar Technology Program • A new opportunity will appear as C.22 Bepi-Colombo Participating Scientists Program(TBD). • C.19 the Planetary Science Early Career Award (ECA) programis solicited this year after having been released as draft last year. • Korea Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter Participating Scientist Programwas released as program element C.31 of ROSES-2018. Step-1s are due April 11, 2019. What's New: Appendix C (Planetary)

11. 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!) What's New: Appendix D (Astrophysics)

12. Mandatory NOIs vs. Step-1 Proposals

13. 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. Mandatory NOIs vs. Step-1 Proposals

14. 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. Mandatory NOIs vs. Step-1 Proposals

15. 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. Mandatory NOIs vs. Step-1 Proposals

16. 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. What's New: Changes to the SoS

17. Due date delayed  Changes and Additions to ROSES after release: Bold and red in Tables 2 and 3 Final Text April 4, 2019

18. 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". Changes and Additions to ROSES after release: NSPIRES mailing lists

19. Changes and Additions to ROSES after release: Links to Amendments etc. on the home page  

20.  ROSES-2019 RSS feed: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/roses-2019/

21. You are here  Changes and Additions to ROSES after release Google due date calendar

22.  You are here Volunteer to serve on a review panel at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/volunteer-review-panels

23. Volunteer to serve on a review panel, continued

24. Spreadsheet updated a few times a year  You are here Statistics about prior ROSES at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-stats

25. 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. Example excerpt from grant stats spreadsheet

26. 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 required with most proposals Reminders of changes from recent ROSES

27. 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: http://tinyurl.com/hbnff8u 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. Redaction Reminder I’m going to skip a few slides after this but leave them in the set to refer to later

28. 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{ Cover Page Budget Redacted{ From http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

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

30. 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."

31. 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 TohichiHikita of Nagoya university at $157/hour. This cost is quite reasonable given that similar facilities are twice as expensive.

32. 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. Total Budget Upload

33. 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. 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.

34. (very simple) Table of Work Effort * A letter of support is provided from the foreign organization HerpsonPolytecknic Universität for Prof. RevolioClockberg 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.

35. 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. Order of Precedence

36. 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" See what won in the past here https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=660534/solicitationId=%7BB4D94D24-60AE-981C-24F2-2A6EC690C99E%7D/viewSolicitationDocument=1/ESI18%20Abstracts.pdf

37. 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 See what won in the past

38. 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… Max's personal idiosyncratic advice

39. 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? So you just got back your review and…

40. 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. THANK YOU to everyone who has previously served and continues to help with the peer review process! Go to http://sara.nasa.govand click on "volunteer" Thank you